Oral Answers to Questions

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

National Missile Defence

Norman Baker: When he last discussed the foreign policy implications of national missile defence with his US counterpart.

Brian White: What discussions he has had with the US Administration on their proposed withdrawal from the anti-ballistic missile treaty of 1972.

Jack Straw: I have regular discussions with the United States Secretary of State, Colin Powell, on many matters, including threats to international peace and security from weapons of mass destruction and missile proliferation. We last discussed specific proposals for missile defence on 11 December.

Norman Baker: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for that answer. When he is asked about this matter, he generally hides behind the formula that no request has yet been made by the US authorities, and that therefore he is not in a position to state the Government's policy. However, he must have made an assessment of the British national interest in this matter. Will he tell the House what that assessment is, and whether it is in our national interest for this country to be used as a base for NMD?

Jack Straw: I hide behind no formula, but the truth is very simple: we have received no request to use Menwith Hill or Fylingdales in respect of a further upgrade of US missile defence.
	As for the general issue of missile defence, the hon. Gentleman would be well advised to take the rational and proportionate approach of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), the foreign affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrat party, according to which the merits of missile defence are considered carefully, if I have got it right. The simple fact of the matter is that we in this country have long recognised the case, in appropriate circumstances, for measures of missile defence. They are permitted by the ABM treaty. Moreover, if missile defence systems had been available at the time of the German V1 and V2 rockets, many thousands of lives in this country would have been saved.

Brian White: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the measured response of President Putin and the Russian Government is one of the reasons why this has not yet developed into an international crisis. He will also be aware of the perception in many parts of the world that US foreign policy is based on double standards, because America is prepared to rip up the ABM treaty, reject the Kyoto agreement, ignore the World Trade Organisation ruling, blockade Cuba and so on. Is it not up to us as the closest ally of the US to make it aware of the dangers of that approach?

Jack Straw: One of the reasons why President Putin's response to these proposals has indeed been measured is the fact that the proposals themselves have been measured. That has been recognised by the President of the Russian Federation. Moreover, although I understand that this is a matter of regret to some of my hon. Friends and indeed other people, the decisions taken by the US to seek an end to the ABM treaty were taken in accordance with the terms of the treaty and international law.

George Osborne: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that a good phrase to describe the rogue states against which missile defence might provide some protection is "an axis of evil"; or does he think that those who use that phrase are just electioneering?

Jack Straw: As I said when I was in the US, I applaud the fact that President Bush has drawn attention to the twin threats of weapons of mass destruction and international terrorism.

Malcolm Savidge: In reviewing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in 2000, all countries promised to maintain and strengthen the ABM treaty and rapidly to ratify the test ban treaty. Will the Government try to impress on our US allies the fact that, by directly contravening those undertakings while blocking other arms control agreements, they increase the risk of proliferation and endanger us all?

Jack Straw: I am afraid that I do not accept the conclusion that my hon. Friend draws about the US position. Although the US has not ratified certain international instruments, it has respected almost every instrument in this field that I can think of.
	We are not a party to the ABM treaty; it is a bilateral treaty between the US and the former Soviet Union, now the Russian Federation. The US is entitled to give notice under that treaty, as it has done. As the House has already recognised, the response of the Russian Federation has been measured, in my judgment, because of the measured proposals from the US.

Michael Ancram: Will the Foreign Secretary reassert today his words reported in The Times on 21 November last year that there was
	"an overwhelming case for missile defence in principle"
	and that
	"the overall case for new forms of missile defences has been strengthened since September 11 . . . because . . . of the extreme nature of the threats that we can face"?
	Does he also recall referring in a parliamentary Labour party briefing on missile defence of 1 August last year to the "growing missile threat" and to states, including Iran and Iraq, acquiring such missiles, and commenting that it was difficult to see the purpose of that other than
	"to threaten and deter the United States"?
	Does he also recall in the same briefing note, under the heading, "Dealing with 'Rogue States'", specifically referring to North Korea and commenting that we could not stop it
	"passing on this deadly technology"?
	Does he still stand by those comments? In the light of them, does not he agree that he should have thought twice before criticising President Bush's speech last week, not least by judging it according to the criteria by which he obviously writes his own?

Jack Straw: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his homework in reading my speeches. I hope that he agrees not only with those speeches but with others. In particular, he drew attention to the excellent Tribune column that I wrote on 24 July.
	I repeat that I strongly support the President's call for action on the twin threats of international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. As for the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the domestic context of the state of the union speech, I can do no better than draw on the view expressed by the Leader of the Opposition last week, when he said:
	"For me . . . a successful foreign and security policy is one which always has a clear understanding of the national interest."
	I agree with him.

Glenda Jackson: How would a nuclear missile defence system have protected the United States from the events of 11 September? Clearly, it would not have done so. If America were to go ahead with a programme that had little scientific base for being successful and that would be astronomically expensive, would this country automatically grant the United States of America a right to site bases on our soil, or would there be a debate before any such undertaking was given?

Jack Straw: Of course there would be nothing automatic about the granting of any such rights, as these matters require careful consideration. My hon. Friend is also right to say that a missile defence system would palpably not have prevented the atrocities of 11 September. However, that does not lead me to conclude that the world is safer as a result of the atrocities of 11 September—rather, that the danger not only from such international terrorism but from the use of missile systems by rogue states and semi-states is much greater. Therefore, we should consider and examine propositions for missile defence on their merits.
	I must say to my hon. Friend that it is slightly ironic that the implication, as in the past, of people saying that they refuse to discuss missile defence is that they fall back on the old doctrine of mutually assured destruction, which was exactly the doctrine that many of us opposed when it was proposed. Had there been missile defence then, we would have been in favour of it.

Middle East

Ian Liddell-Grainger: What steps he is taking to help the Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate.

Ben Bradshaw: We are in regular contact with the Israelis and the Palestinians. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke to Mr. Sharon this morning. I visited the region two weeks ago. We urge both parties to de-escalate the tension and resume negotiations to achieve a just, lasting and comprehensive peace.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: The Minister sums up nicely the Government's attitude—do nothing and hope that the problem goes away. This tit-for-tat situation is getting worse and worse. When will the Foreign Secretary go out there to try to get both sides together and start negotiations to sort out the situation before it gets out of hand? When will he do something about it in practice, as opposed to spin?

Ben Bradshaw: The reaction of most hon. Members showed what they thought of that supposed question. The British Government have been very engaged in the middle east peace process before and since 11 September. The hon. Gentleman may remember a visit that the Prime Minister paid to the region after 11 September, which was shortly followed by a visit to the United States that was crucial in persuading the Americans to become more engaged, in President Bush making a speech in which he became the first President to talk about a Palestinian state and in Colin Powell making a similar speech.

Louise Ellman: Does my hon. Friend believe that negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians are more likely to begin and succeed if this country stands up to Iran and opposes its support for terrorism in the middle east and its specific support for the annihilation of Israel? In particular, is he aware of the statement by Kind Abdullah of Jordan that Iran, through Hamas and Islamic Jihad, is planning major attacks on Israeli civilians from Jordanian territory?

Ben Bradshaw: I agree with my hon. Friend that the role of Iran and of other countries in the region that support rejectionist Palestinian groups not only threatens to terrorise and cause death and mayhem in Israel but undermines the Palestinian Authority.

Nick Gibb: The fact that Hamas and Islamic Jihad are now on the Government's proscribed list of terrorist organisations is very welcome. What evidence do the Government have of links between those terrorist organisations and foreign Governments? What aid is the British Government giving to Israel to help to defeat those terrorist groups?

Ben Bradshaw: We always make plain our abhorrence of terrorism in all its forms, from whatever quarters it comes. We acknowledge that there is contact between countries in the region and rejectionist groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. We condemn that and regularly raise the issue with the Governments with whom we have diplomatic relations.

Ernie Ross: Has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to see early-day motion 763, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick)? It identifies the role played by the Israeli reservists who have refused to participate in a campaign the purpose of which is to occupy, deport, destroy, blockade, kill, starve and humiliate an entire people. Does my hon. Friend agree that the refusal of Israeli defence forces to serve in southern Lebanon ended the occupation of that area by Israel and brought peace to Israel? Would not the Israeli Government be well advised to pay attention to the advice of the Israeli reservists, because only when they end the occupation will there be peace between Israel and Palestine?

Ben Bradshaw: It is not for me to comment on the internal matters of the Israeli defence forces or, indeed, on the behaviour of some of Israel's reservists. During my visit two weeks ago I noticed an encouraging resurgence of criticism among ordinary people on both the Israeli and the Palestinian sides of the current policies deployed by the Israeli Government in the occupied territories and by the Palestinian Authority against Israel, which they saw as unhelpful and simply contributing to a spiral of violence.

Zimbabwe

Mark Hoban: What recent discussions he has had with other members of the EU concerning the future of Zimbabwe; and if he will make a statement.

Henry Bellingham: When he next expects to meet other European Foreign Ministers to discuss the imposition of smart sanctions against members of Zimbabwe's Government.

Jack Straw: On 28 January, the European Union decided to impose targeted sanctions on senior members of the Government of Zimbabwe if they prevent the deployment of election observers between now and the election or prevent the international media from having proper access, or if there is a serious deterioration on the ground.
	The first group of EU election observers has now been deployed, but I am under no illusions—the Government of Zimbabwe have moved this far only because of the international pressure that has been exerted on them, which must be maintained. The Government there will be judged by actions, not words.

Mark Hoban: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his answer, but following the arrest, detention and now release of Basildon Peta, The Independent journalist in Zimbabwe, is it not time to trigger sanctions against Zimbabwe for preventing the international press from following the elections closely?

Jack Straw: I wholly condemn the arrest and detention of Mr. Peta, even though he has now been released. He is an extremely courageous Zimbabwean journalist. I have asked for a full report from the British high commission in Harare on the circumstances of his arrest and detention, which I shall send to the EU Commission. I accept that it is evidence of a prima facie breach of the EU policy.
	Our overall objective, however, is to work as far as we can to achieve a better environment in Zimbabwe in which fairer elections can take place. That continues to be difficult to achieve, but in my view it is a worthwhile objective, and I hope that it has the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House. We are fully supported in that objective by the Opposition parties and non-governmental organisations in Zimbabwe. Although it may be easy to suggest that we should cut off all relations or not send in observers, we should bear that objective very much in mind in every decision we make.

Henry Bellingham: Does not the Foreign Secretary agree that the EU package is far too little too late? Since our last Foreign and Commonwealth questions, Opposition party members in Zimbabwe have been arrested, falsely imprisoned and tortured; some have even been murdered. Mugabe has forced laws through Parliament to restrict press freedoms that are much more draconian than anything in China, resulting in the imprisonment of Basildon Peta. Does the right hon. Gentleman understand why Opposition Members here are so angry about what is going on? Why does he have a blind spot for Zimbabwe? Surely the time has come for him to account for his shameful performance in a full-day debate in Government time.

Jack Straw: The blind spot, I am afraid, is the blind spot of Opposition Members, especially those who adopt a policy of isolation from Europe and effective isolation from the multinational Commonwealth. If the Opposition had been in government, there would have been no possibility of any kind of Commonwealth backing to condemn what has been going on, and no possibility of any kind of backing by the Southern African Development Community to condemn what is going on—still less would there be any possibility of the European Union, having been hectored and lectured by the Opposition, drawing together not only to condemn what is going on in the fullest possible terms, as we have done, but to impose effective sanctions, if at any stage between now and election day or thereafter we do not believe that it has been possible to hold fair and free elections.

Peter Pike: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must be careful in judging the presidential elections? We must recognise that when parliamentary elections were last held in Zimbabwe, the pressure on Opposition parties lessened as the elections approached. Is it not important, therefore, that the observers look at what has happened in the past six months and, indeed, two years, as there has been a rapid erosion of democracy and true freedom in the tragic country of Zimbabwe?

Jack Straw: Yes, I entirely accept that. When we reach an overall judgment about whether the elections were free and fair, we shall certainly have to take into account not just events from now on, but events in the preceding six to 12 months. It was precisely because of the history of election monitoring in Zimbabwe—in the past, election observers were allowed in only for the last few days—that the European Union, the Commonwealth and I insisted that election observers should start to be admitted now, five weeks before the elections, rather than just a few days before.

Ross Cranston: Historically, has not the Commonwealth suspended members only in limited circumstances—for example, when a country has had a coup against an elected Government? Does not Zimbabwe provide an opportunity for the Commonwealth to reconsider the issue of suspension and widen the range of circumstances in which it might be considered?

Jack Straw: My hon. and learned Friend is right. A key decision taken at the Commonwealth ministerial action group on 20 December was to widen the interpretation of the Harare principles, to which he refers. We declared before Christmas that Zimbabwe was in persistent violation of principles that, ironically, were drawn up in Harare in 1991 by President Mugabe. It is precisely because of that persistent violation of the principles that I judged that the Commonwealth, at the CMAG meeting last Wednesday, should suspend Zimbabwe immediately from the councils of the Commonwealth. As the House knows, that recommendation did not attract unanimous support from CMAG, so it fell, but we shall continue to pursue it. There is a further CMAG meeting on 1 March.

Menzies Campbell: May I say to the Foreign Secretary that his efforts of last week have the support of all Liberal Democrat Members? Do not the last few days demonstrate what is typical of Mr. Mugabe? He gave a minimalist response to the EU ultimatum on observers and at the same time arrested The Independent correspondent Basildon Peta—no doubt a deliberate attempt to intimidate like-minded people. If there is clear evidence of malpractice in the course of the presidential election, will the Foreign Secretary consider a withdrawal by Her Majesty's Government of recognition of the Government of Zimbabwe?

Jack Straw: We will certainly monitor robustly what is happening in Zimbabwe, and ensure that our monitoring, as with the arrest of Mr. Peta, is transmitted to the EU. There was unanimity around the room when we decided the sanction policy last Monday; 12 of the 15 member states spoke, and all 12 spoke in favour of the policy, which represents a sea change in attitudes towards Zimbabwe.
	We—the European Union, the United States and our Commonwealth partners—are carefully watching what is happening in Zimbabwe. If we believe, notwithstanding the admission of observers and their report, that the elections were not conducted freely and fairly, then, yes, withdrawal of recognition of that Government is obviously a possibility.

David Borrow: I was in South Africa early last month. One of the clear impressions that I gained from that visit, both from discussions and from following the local media, was that there is real concern about the impact of developments in Zimbabwe on South Africa, a strong belief that a solution to the problems of Zimbabwe lay within southern Africa, and that the countries of southern Africa should take the lead in any solution. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as the ex-colonial power that failed to stop a rebellion in Zimbabwe, we should listen closely to the Governments of southern Africa before taking any action in respect of Zimbabwe?

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend is right to say that, in addition to Zimbabwe, the economies and reputations of the countries of southern Africa have been most grievously damaged by the policies of President Mugabe. Anybody who needs any reassurance about that need only look at what has happened to the South African rand over the past year, the decline of which tracks almost exactly the decline in human rights in Zimbabwe.
	Yes, we do listen carefully to our southern African friends in the Commonwealth and outside. CMAG is chaired by the Foreign Minister of Botswana, but the whole international community in Africa and across the rest of the world is profoundly concerned about the anti-democratic actions of President Mugabe and ZANU-PF; we are entitled, therefore, to take our own decisions about the action that is necessary.

Michael Ancram: Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that despite last Sunday's deadline set by the European Council, there are still no official EU observers in Zimbabwe? Can he also confirm rumours that despite his frequent assertions that Britain is at the heart of Europe, if and when observers are sent, they will not include British observers, and that the free access for the international media required by the Council will not include the BBC or representatives of our major newspapers?
	Does the Foreign Secretary agree that such qualifications on the composition of the observer team and on the definition of the international media would be totally unacceptable to the Government and the House, because they would be nothing more than concessions to the demands being made for electoral purposes by President Mugabe?

Jack Straw: I made it clear that we will not get into a game with President Mugabe about who is or is not to be a member of those teams. Those are matters for the European Union and the Commonwealth to deal with independently. Neither of those bodies is accepting conditions from President Mugabe.
	As for representatives, the right hon. Gentleman is not correct. I am told that as of this morning at least four EU representatives are in the country setting up an observation mission. The leader of the mission will arrive at the weekend with colleagues. We expect other members of the EU observer team—about 100—to deploy in the coming weeks. A head office for the mission in Harare has already been set up, and a contract with a logistical support company is being finalised.
	Given the gravity of the situation, I would have hoped that was something on which the Conservative party could join us. For all the bluster that we hear from the right hon. Gentleman, the simple truth about the priority that is attached to Zimbabwe was told—or rather, not told—in the keynote speech on foreign and commonwealth affairs made by the Leader of the Opposition last Thursday at Chatham house. I have read through the speech—every single word. There is not one word in the speech about Zimbabwe—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Jack Straw: —still less—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That has absolutely nothing to do with the Minister. I should be obliged if, when I stand, the Minister would be seated and not continue his remarks.

Michael Ancram: Last week, we were told by the right hon. Gentleman that the Council's conditions were clear and unambiguous and that we meant business. Today, we are told that the deadline has been waived, that the conditions have now been qualified and distorted to suit Mr. Mugabe and that, in effect, Mugabe is being given the benefit of the doubt again. Can he not understand the widespread feelings of disgust about what is happening in Zimbabwe? Three members of the Zimbabwean Opposition were brutally murdered at the weekend, but apparently that is still not enough to trigger action from him. When will he and his European colleagues realise that appeasement does not work? He welcomed the Abuja agreement, but it was not worth the paper it was written on. History teaches us that appeasing dictators merely encourages them. When will he stop talking and start doing something before it is too late and nothing can be done?

Jack Straw: I think that shows the error of writing one's supplementary question before one knows the answer to the original question. The right hon. Gentleman's basic assumption is wrong. Whether he and I like it or not, the initial condition—that observers must start to be admitted by 3 February—has been met. That is why he is wrong.
	I would have thought that the Conservatives would be the last party to start talking about appeasement. I do not just mean the 1930s; I mean appeasement by the Conservative Government whom the right hon. Gentleman supported in the 1980s. They sat by and did nothing when Mugabe and his henchmen were murdering more than 5,000 native people and taking action in Matabeleland. That was real appeasement, as the Conservative Government did nothing.
	We are taking action now to secure, if we can, a democratic transfer of power in Zimbabwe. If we cannot do that, we must then ensure that further actions follow. The Opposition's propositions would lead to nothing but isolation by Britain and would play into Mugabe's hands.

Mike Gapes: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Conservative Government not only did nothing about the situation in Zimbabwe in the 1980s, but managed to become isolated, 48 to one, in the Commonwealth in support of apartheid South Africa? Will he therefore carry on with his sensible, prudent policy and not fall into the trap of allowing Mugabe to claim that there is some sort of neo-colonialist plot against his Government? Is it not more important that we get united European Union action as well as support throughout southern Africa?

Jack Straw: I have already referred in slightly different terms to the fact that, in my judgment, while this issue may be a personal priority for the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), it is not one that is shared by the Leader of the Opposition. That speaks volumes about the priority that the Opposition attach to the matter. Of course, my hon. Friend is exactly right. The natural consequence of the strategy—if one can adorn it with that phrase—that is being offered by the Opposition Front Bench would not be an end to Mugabe. In my judgment, it would strengthen Mugabe, because he would be able to do what we have denied him for the past nine months and present what is happening as a bilateral dispute, in respect of which, for sure, the Opposition's position would have no support from the European Union, the Southern African Development Community and the Commonwealth. In other words, it is a strategy of failure of the sort that we have seen so many times before from the Conservative party.

EU Enlargement

Anne McIntosh: What recent meetings he has had with his Spanish counterpart to discuss the presidency priorities for EU enlargement.

Peter Hain: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met his Spanish counterpart in London on 19 December to discuss a range of EU issues, including EU enlargement.

Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister confirm that one of the issues that have been discussed is the date of the first direct elections to the European Parliament by the applicant countries? Will he also confirm that he will use the Spanish presidency not only to grant full British citizenship to the people of Gibraltar, but to ensure that, by the date of those first direct elections from the applicant countries, the people of Gibraltar will have the right to send their own directly elected Members to the European Parliament?

Peter Hain: The answer to the question about Gibraltar is yes; we have already made a clear commitment. The answer to the hon. Lady's first question is also yes. Countries that conclude their negotiations on the timetable by the end of the year will be ready to participate in the European elections in the summer of 2004 and, before that, to take part in the intergovernmental conference to shape the future structure of the European Union. We hope that up to 10 countries will attend as members and vote in the subsequent elections.

Ann Clwyd: Was there any discussion of Turkey's failure to enact important human rights reforms, especially its failure to implement the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in July last year? The court found that the imprisonment of Leyla Zana, the Kurdish Member of Parliament, and of three other Kurdish Members of Parliament who have been in jail for eight years, was due to an unfair trial. What are we doing about it?

Peter Hain: I commend my hon. Friend for her long and active interest in the problem of human rights abuses in Turkey. They remain a serious matter, and while they continue, they will prevent Turkey from joining the European Union. Although we support Turkey's application, it must comply fully with the Copenhagen criteria, which include support for human rights and good governance, before it is eligible for membership of the European Union.

Richard Spring: Although I welcome the Spanish presidency's commitment to enlargement, does the Minister agree that successfully expanding the European Union will ultimately depend on a clear division of competencies? In a written answer to me yesterday, he stated:
	"Unlike the Member States, the European Communities have no inherent competence; they only have such competence as is accorded to them by the community Treaties. Accordingly, the competence of the Member States is limited only to the extent that the Communities have competence in accordance with the Treaties."—[Official Report, 4 February 2002; Vol. 379, c. 766W.]
	Given the importance of enlargement, how about more focus and clarity instead of the Eurobabble that the Minister always attacks?

Peter Hain: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was about to commend my plain English. The European Union needs to consider its structures, and especially the role of the nation state as the foundation of the intergovernmentalism that should drive its future. Enlargement will make that even more important, because we hope that an additional 10 countries will join the EU. That is precisely why the Prime Minister has appointed me to join the European convention that will discuss such matters and why the IGC in 2004 will take them forward with a strong British input.

Cameroon

David Chaytor: What plans he has to visit Cameroon to discuss bilateral relations.

Denis MacShane: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was in Africa two weeks ago. All Foreign and Commonwealth Office ministerial visits are kept under review and announced when plans are firm.

David Chaytor: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Did the Government take the opportunity to discuss Cameroon with the French Government during the recent Anglo-French initiative in Africa? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government in Cameroon routinely use death squads from their special security forces to eliminate political opponents? Does he also agree that the United Nations rapporteur on torture recently described the prisons in Cameroon as the worst that he had seen anywhere? Are not the repressive and discriminatory policies of the Government in Cameroon directed against the English-speaking minority, especially members of the Southern Cameroons National Council? Will my hon. Friend assure—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister now has enough to cope with.

Denis MacShane: My hon. Friend has listed many of the human rights abuses in Cameroon. The Government are greatly concerned about them. Cameroon is a bilingual Franco-and Anglophone country which causes anxiety to the EU and the Commonwealth, and is likely to be discussed at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights next month.

John Wilkinson: The Prime Minister has described Africa as a scar on the conscience of the world. Why will he pass Cameroon by in his forthcoming visit to west Africa? Surely it is in special need of a visitation from him, in the dire circumstances that the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) described. Will the prosperity of Cameroon and other countries in Africa be enhanced by the part-privatisation of the Commonwealth Development Corporation?

Denis MacShane: I welcome my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's visit to Africa. There are many people and organisations in all our constituencies for whom concern about Africa is a priority, and such comments come ill from the Conservatives, who did not lift a finger to give any serious help to Africa during their long years in government, and whose leader has just made a great speech on foreign affairs which did not mention that continent once.

Great Lakes

Tony Cunningham: If he will make a statement about his recent visit to the Great Lakes region.

Jack Straw: My recent visit to the Great Lakes with my French counterpart, Hubert Védrine, reinforced our joint commitment to the Lusaka peace process. We made clear to all sides the need for progress in enforcing all Security Council resolutions and for full co-operation with the United Nations mission to the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Tony Cunningham: I thank my right hon. Friend for finding the time to visit the Great Lakes area of Africa. I am sure that he is aware that the war that has been going on in the Congo for four years has cost the lives of 2.5 million people. Two million more are displaced, and something like 65 per cent. of the population—that is, 35 million people—are still undernourished. What are the British Government doing to try to bring this terrible conflict to an end?

Jack Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. He is right to draw attention to the scale of the suffering in the Great Lakes region, because this is the world's worst conflict. The genocide and starvation that have been suffered in the region are almost beyond record. We are working very carefully with France and Belgium—which has historic links with the DRC—as well as with the United Nations to see whether we can advance progress on the Lusaka peace process. Indeed, this was the purpose of my trip. There is a clear framework for peace there, and up to now—in fairness to that framework—it has led to a relative ceasefire for the last year.
	A great deal more progress has to be made, however, and one of the things that Mr. Védrine and I undertook to do while we were in the four countries that we visited was to see what initial steps could be taken for the safe transfer of 1,800 former rebel troops who are being held at Kamina, in the DRC, to Rwanda. Sadly, we were not able to achieve that while we were there, but if we could do so, we would be able to unblock many of the other problems relating to confidence in military co-operation that lie in the way of a permanent settlement.

Richard Spring: In recognising the need for African countries to assume leadership over pan-African problems, with our help and encouragement, did the right hon. Gentleman discuss the new partnership for Africa's development during his visit? What practical support is he giving to the partnership's goals for conflict resolution, for improved environments for trade and investment, and for better governance in Africa?

Jack Straw: We did indeed discuss the new partnership for Africa, which will be a major theme of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's visit to west Africa this week. Since 1997, this Government have done a huge amount to advance a strategy for the development and reconstruction of Africa, including making major increases in development aid under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development. She and I, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, work closely together in a Cabinet Committee that I chair to ensure that diplomatic, aid and military efforts are effectively co-ordinated to prevent conflict, or, where conflict occurs—as in Sierra Leone—better and more quickly to resolve it.

Tony Lloyd: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his recent visit to the Great Lakes region. Does he share my sense of frustration that this conflict, which he suggested was the worst on the planet, has been given so little attention either in Europe or in the United States? Will he acknowledge the need for all the world to get involved in resolving this conflict? Britain has extraordinary influence in Rwanda and Uganda, and we should be telling those countries' Governments that fighting proxy wars in other people's territories is simply unacceptable in this century.

Jack Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. The problem, however, has been not a lack of attention from the United States or from European countries, but—to put it bluntly—the fact that it has been possible for some countries and rebel groups to play off France and Belgium against the United Kingdom. The reason my trip with Mr. Védrine was so important was that we were able to develop a common strategy. It was, therefore, much easier to ensure that Mr. Védrine was giving the hard messages to President Kabila in the DRC, while I was giving the hard messages to Presidents Kagame and Museveni in Rwanda and Uganda.

Gary Streeter: I am sure that the Foreign Secretary was right to focus on humanitarian issues on that recent and important visit, but did he give time to allow the Governments of those countries to make representations on the changes that this Government are making to the Commonwealth Development Corporation, which appear—I emphasise that—to place short-term profits in high-tech corporation industries above long-term jobs for people in many African countries who live in abject poverty?

Jack Straw: I am sure that that is not the case and not remotely the intention of my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development, but the hon. Gentleman will not object too much if I gently observe that there is always room for sinners to repent. This afternoon's repentance—against privatisation and in favour of public ownership—is much to be welcomed.

Arctic

Colin Burgon: What recent discussions he has had with the Governments of (a) Canada and (b) the USA about the effect on the Arctic environment of oil and gas exploration and development.

Denis MacShane: None.

Colin Burgon: I thank my hon. Friend for that constructive reply. I had hoped that he might be able to give a lead on a problem that concerns hundreds of thousands of people around the globe—the future of the Arctic wildlife refuge in Alaska. It appears that the hard-nosed men of the big oil companies want to get in there to exploit and start drilling in that pristine wilderness, but I understand that they need the support of Congress to do so. What can we in Britain do to help defeat their disastrous plans?

Denis MacShane: I meant no discourtesy to my hon. Friend; I simply want to move Question Time forward as fast as possible. He is right to reflect the deep concern, but he must address the fact that the Energy Bill to allow drilling in the Arctic was passed by the House of Representatives by 240 votes to 189. It is going through Congress and is supported by a number of US trade unions.
	The House must understand that we need to engage with the American democratic process rather than name-call the White House. America is a great, vibrant republic and a great federal democracy. As parliamentarians, we need to talk to our colleagues over there to raise those issues, which I fully accept are of great concern to my hon. Friend and, indeed, to many Americans; but it is not for this Government to dictate what the US does inside its own boundaries.

Vincent Cable: Have the Government made any representations to the American or Canadian Governments on behalf of any UK energy company?

Denis MacShane: To my knowledge, no.

Edward Garnier: Does it follow from the answer to the hon. Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) that the Minister will have a word with the Foreign Secretary about his offensive remarks about the speech made the other day by the President of the United States?

Denis MacShane: I do not think that the United States has a better friend in the House than my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. The Conservative party, which last week reconfirmed its commitment to the most foolish isolationism that harks back to Neville Chamberlain, has no lessons to offer anywhere in the world.

EU Enlargement

Mark Lazarowicz: What recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts about the reform of the common agricultural policy in advance of enlargement.

Peter Hain: We frequently raise the importance of CAP reform with European Union and applicant Governments.

Mark Lazarowicz: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. In those discussions, will he tell his European colleagues that it is entirely unacceptable for accession country farmers to be expected to compete with highly subsidised farmers from existing EU countries? Will he call for a level playing field for accession country farmers, which could be achieved by drastic cuts to the obscenely large CAP subsidies paid to big farmers?

Peter Hain: We agree that there must be a level playing field once the applicant countries have come fully into the EU, but transitional arrangements are inevitable in an enlargement of such dimensions, and the proposals published recently by the European Commission provide for that. There will be a transition process.
	I do not think that my hon. Friend is asking for, nor will the Government support, any additional funding for the CAP, which desperately needs reform along precisely the lines that he suggests. Farmers from Britain and other members states should be able to benefit from that reform, as should applicant states when a level playing field is created following the necessary reforms.

Tony Baldry: Is the Minister not concerned about the fact that one accession country, Poland, receives more development aid from the European Union than the whole of Asia? Farmers will not stand a chance of escaping the chronic poverty suffered by these countries unless they are given fairer access to European markets for their agricultural produce.
	This is not just a dispute between accession countries and existing member states. We shall never make progress on Africa until we reform the common agricultural policy in Europe.

Peter Hain: I agree. I just wonder why the Conservative Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was, I think, a member—certainly a supporter—did not achieve the CAP reforms which we began in 1999, and which we will carry through. They will be necessary once enlargement has taken place.
	The hon. Gentleman spoke of the very high—some would say obscene—level of agricultural subsidies in the rich world, Europe included. The total is equivalent to the entire gross domestic product of sub-Saharan Africa. There is no way in which we can conquer poverty, in Africa or elsewhere, unless we get rid of those bloated subsidies and create a level playing field for the agricultural markets of the developing world as well as those in Europe.

Joyce Quin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the progressive replacement of the CAP with a policy of agricultural and rural development would be much better for the different nations and regions of the European Union, and indeed the enlargement countries, than the present over- centralised, over-regulated policy? Will he press for such a change in both the enlargement negotiations and—this is very important—the "future of Europe" negotiations?

Peter Hain: Yes indeed; I agree wholeheartedly with my right hon. Friend. Let me return to the original question, and say that I think many applicant countries would benefit from considering the opportunities for agricultural rural development funding, rather than agricultural funding in the traditional CAP sense, that are available in the European Union. I think that that would help them enormously, if it took place in parallel with efforts to reform the CAP.

Iraq

Patrick Mercer: What discussions he has had with the United Nations concerning the prospect of weapons inspectors visiting Iraq.

Ben Bradshaw: In the United Nations Security Council, we regularly review the prospects for a resumption of UN weapons inspections in Iraq. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary led intensive discussions on that in the margins of the United Nations General Assembly ministerial week in November. The UN expects Iraq to comply fully with its disarmament and monitoring obligations, and to permit the immediate return of UN weapons inspectors.

Patrick Mercer: Does the Minister agree that it is now high time Iraq abided by UN Security Council resolution 678, and allowed on-site inspections throughout Iraq? Does he agree that only by so doing can Iraq leave the cabal of rogue states and join the civilised world?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes. I think Iraq knows exactly what it must do to comply with UN resolutions. It is very simple. There have been vague signs recently that some elements of the regime may be having a change of heart, but I should warn the House that we have seen this before. What we want is action, not just words.

Tam Dalyell: Instead of issuing warnings like this, would it not be at least prudent to listen to what Baghdad has to say to Kofi Annan?

Ben Bradshaw: As I just said, Saddam Hussein has done this before when he has felt under pressure, and he rightly feels under pressure now, post-11 September. He has put out feelers; he has spoken to a number of people, including those in the United Nations. These, however, are simply diplomatic ploys. We should wait and see whether any of his moves are followed by actions rather than words.

Zimbabwe

Peter Viggers: What role the Commonwealth will have in respect of monitoring the 2002 presidential elections in Zimbabwe.

Denis MacShane: The Government of Zimbabwe have stated that Commonwealth election observers will be invited to the presidential elections on 9 and 10 March, but no invitations have yet been issued. On 30 January the Commonwealth ministerial action group called for the immediate deployment of Commonwealth election observers.

Peter Viggers: With the Foreign Secretary's failure to carry our Commonwealth partners with us, I suppose we must take comfort where we can and reflect on the fact that there will be observers, notably from the Commonwealth, and that if the elections are not seen to be fair and free, further action can be taken; and the Commonwealth would be the ideal body to take that action. Does the Minister agree?

Denis MacShane: The hon. Gentleman repeats exactly what the Foreign Secretary said.

Donald Anderson: Has there been any indication from the Government of Zimbabwe that they would seek to exclude British observers from any teams, and if so, what would be the response of both the Commonwealth and the European Union?

Denis MacShane: The simple answer is that that is a matter for the Commonwealth and the European Union, but it is important to stress that there are two institutions seeking to "bilateralise" this matter—to make it a UK-Zimbabwe affair. One is the Government of Zimbabwe; the other is the Opposition Front-Bench team. This Government have sought to get support from the EU, from the Commonwealth, from the Southern African Development Community and from our friends in the United States. That is the way to deal with Zimbabwe, not the isolationist, old colonialist approach of the Conservative party.

Nicholas Winterton: Exactly how many election monitors and observers will be in Zimbabwe by the time the elections take place? I have taken a deep interest in Zimbabwe over many years and raised the genocide in Matabeleland in 1983 with questions in the House. I am ashamed that this country and the civilised world did absolutely nothing about that genocide; I was angry and disgusted. We set a shocking example. Unless there are 500 or 600 monitors and observers in Zimbabwe, I do not believe that the elections can be free, transparent or fair.

Denis MacShane: The hon. Gentleman has a distinguished record in this matter, but when the massacres in Matabeleland were raised in another place in 1984—they were not debated in this House—the then Minister said:
	"The Zimbabwean Government face a serious security threat from dissidents in Matabeleland and obviously must try to take effective action to deal with it."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 May 1984; Vol. 452, c. 259.]
	That was the position of the Conservative party then. We and our international friends and allies are insisting that election observers be in place, and if they are not, there will be consequences. The important thing is that we co-operate internationally, not puff and posture like the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who seeks to bilateralise the matter, falling into the trap that President Mugabe has set for us.

Derek Wyatt: Between now and the presidential elections in Zimbabwe, more money from Zimbabwe will be trying to find its way to the City of London. What extra steps are we taking to talk to the City of London to ensure that money is not laundered here?

Denis MacShane: My hon. Friend raises a serious point. Discussions are currently taking place with the City and with other appropriate departmental ministries to ensure that any improper money, as it were, that arrives in the City of London is notified. If, after the elections are over, the international institutions, of which we are partner members, express dissatisfaction with the election result, consequences in that area will surely follow.

Golden Jubilee

Andrew Rosindell: What plans he has to encourage celebrations of HM the Queen's golden jubilee year in the British overseas territories.

Ben Bradshaw: Governors of the overseas territories have received guidance on arrangements for the Queen's golden jubilee. It is for the Governments and people of the territories to decide how best to celebrate the jubilee. The best present for the overseas territories will be the British Overseas Territories Bill [Lords], currently going through the House; it gives the people of the overseas territories British citizenship, which the Conservative Government failed to do for 18 years.

Andrew Rosindell: I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that the overseas territories have as much right to celebrate the Queen's golden jubilee as people living on mainland Britain? Is he aware that it is nearly 50 years since Her Majesty visited the British Crown colony of Gibraltar? Does he feel that the year of the golden jubilee would be an appropriate time for Her Majesty to visit Gibraltar? If not, perhaps an appropriate occasion would be the 300th anniversary of British sovereignty over Gibraltar, in 2004.

Ben Bradshaw: We never comment on royal visits or where Her Majesty the Queen should or should not go, but she has asked that there should be no undue expenditure from public funds in connection with the jubilee. I would however draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to a number of the planned celebrations, including those on Gibraltar, where there will be a birthday parade and trooping the colour. Some territories will issue special commemorative stamps and many will have a public holiday. I am sure that the newly British citizens of the overseas territories will have a good time—an even better time than those back home.

Gibraltar

Gerald Kaufman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his talks on Gibraltar yesterday with the Spanish Foreign Minister in London.

Jack Straw: Yesterday I met the Spanish Foreign Minister, Josep Piqué. We held the third in a series of meetings under the Brussels process. A copy of the joint communiqué from yesterday's meeting has been placed in the Library. At every stage we have kept the House fully informed of the process of the negotiations, including in a three-hour debate in Government time last Thursday in Westminster Hall. A further meeting under the Brussels process is due to be held within the next two months. The date has yet to be fixed.
	There are four aspects to the approach that we have adopted: preserving Gibraltar's unique way of life; greater internal self-government for Gibraltar; practical benefits through co-operation and putting the long-running dispute about sovereignty to rest.
	I am convinced that this dialogue represents the best way forward for the people of Gibraltar as well as for Spain and the United Kingdom. It must be better to try to settle differences through dialogue, and I am convinced that the people of Gibraltar have more to gain than to lose from the process. Moreover, they will not lose their British citizenship nor their traditional way of life. However, they will gain greater self-government and many practical benefits of a much more co-operative relationship with Spain and its people.
	I underline the commitment that was first given in the House by the Labour Government in 1969, and that we have repeated in this round: that any proposals affecting the sovereignty of Gibraltar will not and cannot be put into effect without the consent of the people of Gibraltar in a referendum.
	I want the Government of Gibraltar to be directly involved in the Brussels round talks. Yesterday, the British and Spanish Governments reiterated our invitation to Chief Minister Caruana to participate in the discussions on the basis of the two flags, three voices formula, in which he would have his own distinct voice as part of the British delegation.
	Lastly, there is nothing inevitable about the outcome of the discussions, but it is in all our interests to make a constructive effort to find a lasting solution to the problems—above all, one which we believe will be in the interests of the people of Gibraltar.

Gerald Kaufman: I thank my right hon. Friend for sending me a copy of yesterday's communiqué and his article in the Gibraltar Chronicle yesterday.
	Is it not bizarre that Spain has imposed and maintained what my right hon. Friend described in the Gibraltar Chronicle yesterday as
	"obstructions to everyday life"
	which
	"the people of Gibraltar are forced to endure",
	and that the Spanish Government are now graciously offering to lift those restrictions provided that the British Government sell out the interests of those same people of Gibraltar?
	Yesterday in London, despite what my right hon. Friend has just said about his ambition to put the long-running dispute over sovereignty to rest, the Spanish Foreign Minister said that
	"Spain could not accept that the Gibraltarian people had a right to self-determination and would not drop its historic claim on the colony."
	An agreement from those negotiations would therefore be only the first slice of the chorizo. Should not the British Government value the fact that the people of Gibraltar are so proud of being British that, to maintain their present status, they are ready to endure those obstructions to everyday life, just as they endured far worse in the second world war in defence of Britain and of democracy? Will my right hon. Friend make it absolutely clear that, apart from the telephone lines referred to yesterday, Spain will remove the restrictions—my right hon. Friend described them as those that the people of Gibraltar have to "endure"—only if the outcome of the negotiations is satisfactory to Spain and is then endorsed by the people of Gibraltar in a referendum? Will he also understand that there is no majority in the House for a negotiation conducted under duress?

Jack Straw: I accept that there would be no majority in the House for negotiation under duress, but I believe that there is a majority for negotiation conducted within the Brussels process, which was initiated in 1984 by the Administration of Lady Thatcher with all-party support and the support of the shadow Cabinet. Indeed, at that time my right hon. Friend and I were on the Opposition Front Bench. Bipartisan support for the process continues to this day. As we discovered on 12 January during a similar private notice question, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the shadow Foreign Secretary—notwithstanding his bluster—supported a continuation of the process.
	As I have said to my right hon. Friend—I am happy to repeat the point—I accept entirely that all kinds of obstructions to daily life in Gibraltar have been imposed by the Government of Spain. Those obstructions should not be there and I am trying to do something about them. However, I defy any Member of the House to explain how we can deal with them—short, as I said on 12 January, of sending gunboats or threatening military action—except through discussion and dialogue with the Government of Spain.
	My right hon. Friend also asked whether—apart from the telephone lines—Spain will remove other obstructions only if there is a satisfactory outcome to this phase of the negotiations that is then endorsed through a referendum. As part of the Brussels process, we are discussing with Spain the removal of further obstructions—as he calls them—well before any referendum. It is for that reason that we undertook considerable negotiation to get Spain to agree in principle to the transfer of the 70,000 lines. Yesterday, we agreed to further work on some of the technical problems associated with their connection.
	I want to make two final points. First, whether we or the people of Gibraltar like it or not, the world for Gibraltar is changing. It is changing not because of Spain or the United Kingdom, but because of the rules of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the European Union, which will quickly bring to an end Gibraltar's tax-free status. Gibraltar needs a new future and everybody in Gibraltar understands that.
	Secondly, as I have said, the process that we are involved in—which cannot conceivably be described in my right hon. Friend's words—means that nothing that we agree can come into force without the consent of the people of Gibraltar in a referendum. I have made a point of that.

Michael Ancram: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that yesterday has done nothing to allay or dispel suspicion and anger in Gibraltar or in the House? If anything, the fears that I previously raised with the Foreign Secretary, and which until now he has dismissed, are turning out to be true. The process in which he is engaged is clearly seen as the disingenuous sell-out that we have always believed it to be.
	Does not the Foreign Secretary accept that, once made, a bilateral agreement between the British and Spanish Governments to share sovereignty over Gibraltar cannot be rescinded? Even if it is subsequently rejected by the people of Gibraltar, the principle of ceding sovereignty over the Rock to Spain will have been established, the pass will have been sold and the promised democratic rights over sovereignty of the people of Gibraltar will have been fatally undermined.
	Cannot the Foreign Secretary see that that is the sell-out, the done deal, that we and the people of Gibraltar fear, and which we and they will oppose? Why does not he accept the suggestion that I made in my letter of 18 January, which he dodged in his reply? That is that, in this process—which we accept—nothing should be agreed by any party until the overall proposals being put forward are approved in a referendum, and that, in the absence of Gibraltar's acquiescence, neither Government could claim that an agreement had been reached on any issue. That would meet the concerns and fears of the people of Gibraltar, and of Opposition Members.
	Cannot the Foreign Secretary accept, even at this late date, that he owes the people of Gibraltar, not least for the loyalty that they have shown us, an open and democratic process, with nothing agreed by him on behalf of the British Government until all the proposals are agreed by the people of Gibraltar? Anything less would be a dishonourable betrayal, which would shame not only the right hon. Gentleman, but us all.

Jack Straw: Yet again, we see a man without a policy. On the one hand, the right hon. Gentleman says that the Brussels process will lead to a sell-out, and on the other that we should continue with it. He needs to make up his mind.
	Only by discussion in the Brussels process can we conceivably reach the point where proposals can be put to the people of Gibraltar. I should much prefer it if the right hon. Gentleman were to write me a letter about a different architecture for the discussions. I would prefer there to be a different architecture for the discussions, and for the Government of Gibraltar to be part of those discussions. I keep repeating that invitation to Peter Caruana. I believe that it is safe for him to take part in the discussions, as nothing to do with his involvement in them would remotely prejudice anything that he said to the people of Gibraltar by way of advice about voting yes or no in a referendum.
	I would value Peter Caruana sitting alongside me—two flags, three voices—in the process. In that way, instead of having to meet him separately and make telephone calls to him—which I am always happy to do—I would have his advice in the room. At the moment, that is not possible. The only alternative under the Brussels process, which the Conservative party in government initiated and with which the right hon. Gentleman agrees, is that there should be bilateral discussions.
	If the discussions are satisfactory—they may not be—their outcome will be that we agree proposals. However, those proposals will come into law only if the people of Gibraltar agree. That is a sensible way in which to proceed. It has the absolute democratic guarantee that, ultimately, it will be the people of Gibraltar who will decide. Let them decide, is what I say.

Lindsay Hoyle: I know that my right hon. Friend has a great interest in trying to achieve agreement over Gibraltar, but the real problem is that Piqué has stated openly and clearly that he will never accept that the people of Gibraltar have a right of self-determination. That declaration should be reason enough for us to withdraw from the talks.
	We must be aware that we face the danger that people will accuse us of double standards. We cannot go around the world saying openly that we believe in democratic rights, and that we went into Bosnia and Afghanistan because we believe that people have the right to democracy, at the same time as we are beginning to put an end to the rights of the people of Gibraltar.
	Spain has stated deliberately today that the people of Gibraltar have no rights. I declare an interest in what goes on, as I am chair of the all-party Gibraltar group. I believe that we should reconsider our position and allow that other countries in the EU have differing tax statuses within their borders. One example is Spain, and the circumstances covering Ceuta, Melilla, Tenerife and the Canary islands. Another example is France, and the differing status accorded to Monaco. Another example is Britain, with Jersey and the Isle of Man—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Jack Straw: Let me deal with the issue of self-determination. I apologise for not picking up on it in my response a moment ago.
	The Spanish Government and people have maintained a long-standing position on Gibraltar. However, they are involved in the negotiations and we have made it clear that there is no way that we shall accept that position and hand over sovereignty, lock, stock and barrel, to Spain. I have said that repeatedly, as has my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe. We are involved in negotiations. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) is an expert on the origins of British sovereignty in Gibraltar, he will know that by the treaty of Utrecht, sovereignty was ceded to the English Crown, to the United Kingdom, and that the same clause in that treaty states clearly that if ever sovereignty is given up by the United Kingdom it has to go back to Spain. So in the classic terms of normal decolonisation—when we had absolute sovereignty and no country had first refusal on it—we could of course grant independence if we and the other country so wished. That does not arise in respect of Gibraltar, so the alternatives are sovereignty with the UK, sovereignty with Spain or something in between.
	As regards self-determination, whatever Spain may have said in the past, Spain has acknowledged, as part of these negotiations, that we will put any agreed proposals to the people of Gibraltar and that we will not implement them without the consent of the people of Gibraltar. We can argue about whether that really is self-determination, but in the context that I have described I think that it is.
	I hope too—Spain has also acknowledged this—that as part of those discussions, if we reach an agreed outcome, we can grant a far greater degree of internal self- government to Gibraltar than exists at present. Spain is entirely in agreement with that.

Menzies Campbell: Has the Foreign Secretary been able to identify any advantage to the people of Gibraltar from their Government staying out of the negotiations, especially when they would have no obligation either to accept or to endorse any result of the negotiations? Furthermore, what efforts has he made in his conversations to persuade the Spanish Government to take unilateral measures designed to increase confidence in Gibraltar—not least by the removal of the bureaucratic obstacles at the border? Finally, can he think of any greater illustration of the principle of sovereignty than that the people of Gibraltar should have an unencumbered veto over the British Government—something that no part of the United Kingdom enjoys?

Jack Straw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's final point is absolutely right. I also believe in the wider sense of the word sovereignty. If sovereignty means greater control over one's own life, the kind of future that we seek to map out for the people of Gibraltar—in which there is real freedom across the borders and for trade, and where the economy can be opened up not only to the people of Gibraltar but to the whole of that part of southern Europe—would provide them with a much greater degree of practical sovereignty than they have at present.
	As to why Chief Minister Peter Caruana should not take part in these discussions, he has advanced reasons to me that I do not want to go into in public, but in discussion with him I continue to try to identify the rubbing points for the Government of Gibraltar and to try to accommodate them. I regret that that has not proved possible so far, but the invitation remains open. In my judgment—although ultimately it is a matter for him—the people of Gibraltar would be better served by Mr. Caruana being in the negotiations rather than outside them. However, we shall continue to consult with him.
	As regards Spain taking unilateral steps to build confidence, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct: Spain should do that. It was for that reason that we urged Spain to put in the telephone lines. We obtained agreement in principle and we want those lines actually to be installed. Furthermore, it would greatly help if Spain could now take other measures—they have formed a major part of my conversations with Minister Piqué—to reduce the lack of confidence that exists across those borders.

Denzil Davies: My right hon. Friend has mentioned the rather bizarre concept of two flags, three voices. He has also mentioned Spain's so-called historic claim to Gibraltar. Can he give us an assurance that, if agreement is reached on the two flag concept, an express condition will be that Spain give up its historic claim?

Jack Straw: That is obviously one part of the discussions. [Interruption.] As people who have ever been involved in the negotiations will know, that is, of course, one part of the discussions. I shall not anticipate the outcome of the negotiations, until there is a satisfactory outcome, but I am happy to say that there is no way, in these negotiations, that we intend to cede, lock, stock and barrel, the sovereignty of Gibraltar to Spain. That is not part of our agenda—not now, not for the future.

Teddy Taylor: As the Government of Spain have been shamefully and blatantly depriving the people of Gibraltar of their entitlements in anticipation of the discussions, would not the Foreign Secretary, as a great enthusiast for the EU, think that a better start to the negotiations would be to invite the Commission to take Spain to the European Court of Justice for blatantly and wrongfully depriving the people of Gibraltar of their rights?

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman suddenly seems to have been converted to the merits of the European Court of Justice. [Interruption.] Well, he mentioned it. That is a rather dangerous path down which to take Gibraltar because the infraction proceedings that are in prospect before the European Court of Justice are not against Spain, but against Gibraltar for its failure to transpose a number of EU directives. Whether or not one accepts another party's position in the negotiations, it is always at least worth comprehending that position. Spain has a number of points against Gibraltar. We have to examine carefully the way in which Spain thinks that Gibraltar and, indeed, the United Kingdom have behaved towards Spain historically, and we have to take that into account in any final agreement that we may reach.

David Winnick: Is it likely that there are more than 12 people, at the very maximum, in Gibraltar, who are in favour of what is happening? Is not the truth of the matter simply that, over the years, Spain has pursued a policy of harassment, obstruction and downright annoyance against the people of Gibraltar, whose only crime is that they simply want to retain their links with Britain? Good luck to them.

Jack Straw: I suspect that the number is rather more than 12, but I shall not start counting just yet. Of course, I understand the intense feeling among the people of Gibraltar about the harassment that takes place against them; nor do I remotely think that it is justified or necessary. I am involved in these negotiations, even at the risk of finding that, just at the moment, I do not have majority support in Gibraltar. I am glad that it is not my constituency, but that is okay because I know that the people of Blackburn support me in this endeavour, as I suspect do the people of Walsall, although we have no need to put it to the test.
	Even though I understand some of the difficulties and complexities of the issue that faces us at the moment, I am involved in the negotiations precisely because I am concerned about that harassment and those obstructions by the Government of Spain. But I also look ahead down the track and see a different environment, in which Gibraltar will have to operate whether or not we reach agreement. I cannot say what the final conclusion will be, but we are working in the best interests of the people of Gibraltar, as well as the United Kingdom.
	In case my hon. Friend did not hear this right at the beginning, there is no question that the people of Gibraltar will lose their British citizenship, or their British way of life. Those are absolutes; we made that clear to the Spanish Government at the start, and to lift the veil a little on the negotiations, they have accepted both points. If they had not done so, we would not still be involved in the negotiations.

Andrew Mitchell: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that many hon. Members on both sides of the House can smell the stench of betrayal and sell-out wafting out from underneath the doors at King Charles street? If, as he says, the people of Gibraltar have an arm-lock on the results of the negotiations and given that he knows perfectly well what the results of the Gibraltarians' considerations on his negotiations will be, would it not be much better for his extremely clever and dedicated team of staff in the Foreign Office to get on with something rather more worth while?

Jack Straw: The value and importance of this process were recognised 18 years ago by a distinguished Conservative former Foreign Secretary, now Lord Howe, and it was pursued with the active support of the then Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher. We supported the process at that time precisely because of the problems faced by Gibraltarians. There has to be a process of discussion.
	As we have heard, despite all the bluster from those on the Opposition Front Bench, they support the process, too. I have not heard one proposal this afternoon from any of those who have a slight difference of emphasis from me in regard to the negotiations about what they would do other than to engage in discussions to seek to resolve the problems for the people of Gibraltar.

Doug Henderson: May I point out to my right hon. Friend that there are Labour Members who support the hard work that he is putting in to try to resolve an anachronistic constitution in a modern Europe? People in business in Gibraltar recognise that, if there are no changes to its constitutional status, their businesses will not prosper in the future and they will be denied any real independence. That view is widely held.

Jack Straw: I have always admired my hon. Friend's independent judgment and the quality of the arguments that he advances.

David Heathcoat-Amory: If the Foreign Secretary accepts the principles of decolonisation and self-determination, why are the British Government and the Government of Spain, who wish to become the colonising Government in Gibraltar, attempting to construct a joint sovereignty arrangement over the heads of the people of Gibraltar? Such an agreement will be turned down by the people of Gibraltar, because they cannot be bought in that way. However, the agreement will remain as a rebuke and a threat to Gibraltar for long afterwards and in defiance of the people's wishes and, indeed, of the principle of self-determination. What principle of international relations or international law is the right hon. Gentleman following, or is this really about the demands of the Spanish Government and the convenience of the European Union?

Jack Straw: The principle is that international negotiation is a far better process to follow than the alternative. However, Conservatives Members baulk at that suggestion. We have problems with Spain over Gibraltar, and the Gibraltarians have even greater problems. There are two ways of seeking to resolve such problems. The first is by force of arms and the other is by force of argument. I believe—international law requires this—in using force of argument. Moreover, it is utter nonsense to suggest that we are going over the heads of the people of Gibraltar. We are going to the people of Gibraltar and we shall not just ask for their opinion, because they have a veto over the final conclusion that we come to.

George Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is part of his thinking that the Government of Gibraltar's engagement in this process would enable them to improve Gibraltar's identity and place in Europe? It would also improve and strengthen relations between Britain and Spain and between Britain and the Government of Gibraltar and would not allow those relations to wither away, as they are at present. Does he agree that, although those Labour and Opposition Members who use the language of betrayal and sell-out may be genuine friends of Gibraltar, they do not help the process and are making it even harder for him to accomplish what he is trying to do?

Jack Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; he is exactly right. I do not believe that using such misplaced and inaccurate descriptions helps anyone, least of all the people of Gibraltar. I find it difficult to understand how such labels can be attached when the process is open and we want the Chief Minister of Gibraltar to be involved in the negotiations. As that has not been possible to achieve, we are consulting him as much as we can.

Nicholas Winterton: Will the Foreign Secretary accept that we do not have a dispute with Spain? The right of the Gibraltarians to be involved with the United Kingdom is recognised in an international treaty that is almost 300 years old. What we are experiencing is the unreasonable behaviour of Spanish Governments and the Spanish people. Can he tell the House—if he truly believes in democracy—whether the people of Gibraltar came to the British Government to ask for help in negotiating joint sovereignty with Spain so as to remove some of the problems, or whether they asked him to intercede to get a co-member of the European Union to behave in a civilised and reasonable way?

Jack Straw: It is a matter of record that the request for the Brussels process arose from discussions between the then Conservative Government and the Spanish Government. It did not arise directly from a request by the Gibraltarian Government. However, we have received many requests for us to sort out the difficulties in Gibraltar. I repeat that the only way to do that is by discussion. That has to be within the Brussels process because the die was cast in 1984 by the Government whom the hon. Gentleman and Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen supported. One part of the negotiations deals with sovereignty because that was what was agreed between the Government of Spain and a Conservative Administration.

Judy Mallaber: Has my right hon. Friend been offered from any quarter practical proposals on how to get rid of the restrictions on the people of Gibraltar other than by entering into discussion and negotiation? Can he explain why those who oppose the process think that the status quo, which includes those restrictions, is acceptable and why they think that a process in which the people of Gibraltar have the final say in a referendum is not self-determination?

Jack Straw: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. The answer is no; there have been no alternative practical proposals for resolving the problems—none at all.

Julian Lewis: The Foreign Secretary said that there were only two choices: to go to war or to negotiate. There is a third choice, however: to maintain the status quo. That has been successfully achieved in facing down other regimes and can be successful in Gibraltar. Does the right hon. Gentleman honestly believe that even if restrictions are removed for the duration of a referendum campaign and the vote goes against the acceptance of shared sovereignty once he has done his dirty deal with the Spanish, those restrictions will not immediately be reimposed by Spain?

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman is not using his usual analytical skills on the arguments. I was talking about the two choices that are involved in the process of negotiation; he is talking about the outcome. If proposals are agreed between this Government and the Government of Spain, that outcome will be put to the people of Gibraltar. If and when a referendum takes place, the arguments for those people to consider will be either to maintain the status quo or to have a different future. In the end, that is a matter for the people of Gibraltar.
	As the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) explained, no other colonial situation has had such a degree of effective self-determination. It did not happen with Hong Kong—those negotiations were carried out by a Conservative Administration who just handed Hong Kong over to China without any suggestion of a referendum—so I do not want to hear any more nonsense about self-determination from the Conservatives.

David Chidgey: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the Chief Minister of Gibraltar has made it clear for some time that he would be more than happy to negotiate with Spain on the restrictions placed on Gibraltar because of the effects that Spain claims they have on it? That has not happened because Spain will not talk about anything unless sovereignty is at the head of the agenda. The Foreign Secretary knows perfectly well that the referendum in Gibraltar, whenever it is held, will result in a resounding rejection by the Gibraltarians. We must therefore ask what his agenda is. Does he mean to say to the United Nations that Spain and Britain have agreed on the future of Gibraltar and the problem is merely that Gibraltar has yet to come to terms with it, and all other options are closed?

Jack Straw: Sovereignty is part of the agenda; it is not a prior condition, but it was agreed as part of the Brussels process. The hon. Gentleman asked me to predict the outcome of the referendum. My track record is poor. I was an active member of the no campaign in 1975. When the four-week campaign began, there was a 2:1 majority in favour of a no vote; at the end, there was a 2:1 majority in favour of a yes vote. I am therefore making no predictions. During that process, people listened to the argument. I hope that if we again agree proposals with the Government of Spain over time and through discussion, we will be able to discuss them in more detail with the people of Gibraltar. In any event, I made it clear yesterday that it will be their decision; we will respect it and we will stand by them whatever it is.

Tony Lloyd: May I remind my right hon. Friend that the concept of "two flags, three voices" is fairly similar to the device used in discussions with Argentina and the Falkland Islands, which did not lead to betrayal of the interests of the islanders, any more than my right hon. Friend's present negotiations will lead to betrayal of the Gibraltarians? Will he reinforce his point that a Spain that has to come to the negotiating table knowing that the people of Gibraltar will have the final say on their future is also a Spain that has to negotiate in good faith? He was therefore right in his statement that the process of negotiation is the best way of getting rid of the artificial impediments to Gibraltar's progress imposed by Spain.

Jack Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his sage observation about negotiations concerning south America and the Falkland Islands. I repeat: we need a process to deal with these problems, and this is the best way of achieving that. I very much wish that the Chief Minister of Gibraltar was taking part in the negotiations. I believe that we have made it possible for him to do so; he takes a different view, which I respect. The invitation remains open.

Hugo Swire: Can I help the Foreign Secretary to retain at least a fig leaf of credibility in these shoddy dealings, and respond to questions that he has been asked repeatedly by Members on both sides of the House? Will he state categorically that in the event of the people of Gibraltar rejecting the stitch-up, which they surely will, the negotiations and anything relating to them will be taken off the agenda once and for all?

Jack Straw: In the event of a no vote, the proposals will not be implemented. I cannot rewrite history in the event of a no vote. If there is a no vote, the hon. Gentleman and his Front Bench are asking me to rush to the archives and tear up—

Michael Ancram: indicated assent.

Jack Straw: The right hon. Gentleman says yes; we are to be like Arthur Andersen and shred the records. It is the Enron approach to foreign affairs: to negotiate, to agree proposals, and then when people do not like them—as obviously the Opposition do not—to rush back and destroy all the evidence that there had ever been agreement. I am sorry, I am not following that line; I believe in being straight with the people of Gibraltar, which is what we shall be.

Chris Bryant: Is not it true that the Little Englander mentality of people who refuse even to countenance the idea of any kind of talks can only harm the long-term interests of the people of Gibraltar? Is it not true also that the old Franco mentality of people in Spain who refuse to countenance any change in their position can only harm the future of Spain? Would it not make much more sense for the Government of Spain to renounce their long-term aspiration to sole Spanish sovereignty of Gibraltar and for the Government of Gibraltar to take part in the talks as soon as possible?

Jack Straw: I accept entirely what my hon. Friend says. Spain has imposed restrictions on Gibraltar which we do not accept and do not believe are justified. There is a parody of Spain and the Spanish people among some hon. Members which bears no relationship to the truth. The Kingdom of Spain is a democracy and a member of the European Union. Fifteen times as many British people live happily in Spain as live in the British colony of Gibraltar, and they live there voluntarily. Many Gibraltarians, notwithstanding the restrictions, have a stake in Spain as well. Moreover, although I do not accept most of what is said, if one is going into negotiations, it is a good idea to understand where the other side is coming from. Whether we agree with them or not, some of the concerns of the other side have a foundation that we cannot ignore. The purpose of the negotiations is to try to find a way through. Again, I repeat that not once in the past 40 minutes of discussion has there been any proposal for resolving the problem for the people of Gibraltar, except through the Brussels process.

Edward Garnier: Why not—[Interruption.] Perhaps I could have the attention of the Foreign Secretary. Why not three voices and three flags?

Jack Straw: The hon. and learned Gentleman is a lawyer. Because of the treaty of Utrecht.

Louise Ellman: In view of the deep hostility felt by the people of Gibraltar towards falling under Spanish sovereignty, shared or otherwise, will the Foreign Secretary tell us what unpleasant circumstances and trick question he is preparing for the referendum?

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend asks me a disobliging question. She should not judge the Government by her own standards.

Tim Loughton: If the Foreign Secretary cobbles together some deal with Spain which involves the diminution of Gibraltarian sovereignty, and if that question is asked in a referendum and wholeheartedly rejected, as it will be, will he guarantee that the rights of the Gibraltarians as British subjects will be no less vigorously protected by his Government, and that he will no less vigorously pursue the iniquities of the Spanish treatment of Gibraltarians through the EU, which he should have been doing rather more vigorously for some years?

Jack Straw: I said yesterday, as I have already repeated twice in the House, and I said in Barcelona that if the people of Gibraltar decide to reject the proposals, as they are fully entitled to do—I hope that they will not reject them if we agree them, but I accept the possibility that they may—we will stand by not only our legal but our moral and political obligations to the people of Gibraltar.
	One reason why I am committed to this process for resolving the problems faced by Gibraltar and those that arise in respect of Gibraltar in the European Union is that, in my experience as Home Secretary, we ran into difficulties time after time with a number of instruments, when Spain raised problems, sometimes with justification, because of the application or otherwise of the instrument to Gibraltar. The proposals are a way of resolving those problems, as well as making a better future for the people of Gibraltar.

Mike Gapes: My right hon. Friend mentioned what might happen if there were an agreement between the Government and the Spanish Government. Will he speculate on what may happen to the people of Gibraltar, their economy and their future if there is no agreement with Spain?

Jack Straw: That, in the end, is a matter for the people of Gibraltar, but my hon. Friend raises an important question. One thing is certain: the, as it were, duty-free, low tax status of Gibraltar will end over the next four or five years. That has nothing directly to do with the Government of Spain or the UK, but results from decisions principally by the OECD and the EU against such tax-free status. That will change the environment in which Gibraltar operates, and there are some people— I accept that they are a minority at present in Gibraltar—who understand that and believe that Gibraltar has a far better future in a wholly open environment as a full member of the EU. That is likely to be my view, but in the end, it is a matter for the people of Gibraltar to make the choice, because it is their life, not ours.

Andrew MacKay: Does not the Foreign Secretary think that it was strange and indeed discourteous to the House that at no time during last Thursday's debate in Westminster Hall did the Minister for Europe ever mention the fact that further talks would be taking place yesterday? Does not that illustrate why the House is so suspicious of what the Government are doing?

Jack Straw: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. He owes an expression of regret to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, because we made that announcement.

David Heath: Is it not the case, in respect of the events of the past few years, that trying to negotiate an agreed constitutional settlement that is acceptable to the people of Gibraltar is simply hopeless without the prerequisite of confidence-building measures on the part of the Spanish Government? Such measures need to be in place over a period. The suggestion that there are no diplomatic levers that the UK Government can use with Spain short of sending a gunboat into Cadiz is frankly ridiculous.

Jack Straw: I do not think that that view is shared by Liberal Democrat Front Benchers or by many other people. Between 1987, when the airport agreement failed, and the resumption of negotiations under the Brussels process last year, this Government and previous Governments have sought—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Foreign Secretary answer the question.

Jack Straw: In that period, various diplomatic negotiating devices were tried by Conservative and Labour Administrations. None of them worked, so the proof is there that the Brussels process provides us with the best possible means of solving this matter.

John Wilkinson: Is it not supremely unedifying for our Foreign Secretary to presume to know better than the people and elected Government of Gibraltar what is in their best interests? If he wants to put the issue of sovereignty to rest, should not he quite simply refuse ever to discuss it with Spain? Will he bear it in mind that the last time we tried a joint sovereignty solution—in the Falkland Islands—it merely increased the appetite of those who had malign intentions towards British territory and citizens?

Jack Straw: I dealt with that point at some length, so I refer the hon. Gentleman to earlier answers.
	I should like to point out to the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) that, in Westminster Hall on 31 January, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe specifically announced that
	"the next in the series of ministerial meetings in the Brussels process will be held in London on 4 February."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 31 January 2002; Vol. 379, c. 138WH.]
	The right hon. Gentleman owes my right hon. Friend an apology.

Anne McIntosh: Will the Foreign Secretary explain to the House the difference between our relationship with Gibraltar and that of Spain with Ceuta and Manila? Why are there not two separate sets of negotiations in which Spain can change its relationship with Ceuta and Melilla while his Government are seeking to change our relationship with Gibraltar? Furthermore, he said that Gibraltar was in the dock in the European Court of Justice for not applying directives. Of course, it had no political representation concerning those directives. Neither Gibraltar nor its people were represented in any discussions whatever, as they have no directly elected Members of the European Parliament. Will he therefore take this opportunity to confirm the words of the Minister for Europe and tell us that Gibraltarians will not only be guaranteed British citizenship, but have the right to elect their very own Members of the European Parliament?

Jack Straw: We have already accepted that judgment and work is in hand. Gibraltar would have to be part of another constituency. Let me explain to the House that we have got this problem because of an unsatisfactory outcome to the negotiations in 1713 following a slightly inconclusive result in the war of Spanish succession. That is the truth: in 1713, insufficient attention was given to the prospects 300 years later for negotiations with Spain. That is why we are in a unique legal position in respect of the sovereignty of Gibraltar. Had the treaty of Utrecht resulted in the United Kingdom gaining Gibraltar without any first refusal for Spain, we would not be in our current difficulties. However, the legal base of our title to the Rock is different, and so the problems exist.

Andrew Rosindell: The Foreign Secretary claims that there is no serious alternative to his proposal. Why has not he considered the obvious alternative of giving the people of Gibraltar the same rights as the people of the overseas territories of France and Spain, and allowing them the option of full integration into the United Kingdom?

Jack Straw: That proposal has not been put before us, but if it happened, all Gibraltar's economic and tax advantages would go.

Nick Hawkins: I declare my interest as an active member of the all-party group on Gibraltar. The Foreign Secretary has said repeatedly that he wants constructive suggestions about the way forward. Would not he be wiser to recognise that his job as British Foreign Secretary is to represent the British people of Gibraltar in their complaints about Spain's bad behaviour? Since he refuses to do that, will he acknowledge that he has caused additional offence, as one of my Gibraltarian friends with family in my constituency said, by appointing as the Minister responsible someone who is less British than the people of Gibraltar?

Jack Straw: That shows a certain poverty of argument. Of course I try to represent the interests of the people of Gibraltar in the negotiations; I am the only person at the head of a delegation on our side. I should much prefer Peter Caruana, the elected representative of the people of Gibraltar, to sit alongside me so that there could be two flags and three voices. I look forward to the realisation of that hope.

Ofsted Annual Report

Estelle Morris: I am delighted, Mr. Speaker, to lay the 2000-01 report from Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools before Parliament. Let me begin by thanking and paying tribute to Mike Tomlinson, whose last annual report we are considering. He has made a huge contribution to education as a teacher and inspector, and I know that he will continue to do that after he steps down from his current post in April. I also thank the inspectors and those who work for Ofsted for their professionalism and dedication.
	Ofsted has shown the value of an independent inspectorate, identifying the strengths and weaknesses in our education system and telling it as it is. I congratulate the schools that appear on this year's list of outstanding schools and all those who work with them. We also congratulate and thank the more than 200 schools that have been removed from special measures this year.
	Today's report shows that the quality of education is getting better. Our education system was recently acknowledged as a star performer by the programme for international student assessment study. We can be sure at last that we have a good and improving education system. We know that further improvements are needed; big challenges are ahead that need to be addressed.
	Quality of teaching and school leadership is key to raising standards. The report describes teaching in the past year as the best ever. The proportion of lessons found to be unsatisfactory is the lowest ever recorded and the proportion of teaching found to be good or better has never been higher.
	Schools are reported as being increasingly well led and managed. That is a tremendous achievement and I thank and applaud teachers, heads and all those who work in our schools for their hard work.
	The chief inspector's report acknowledges the enormous gains that have been made in recent years through reforms to primary education. Between 1997 and 2000, the proportion of children attaining level 4 by the end of key stage 2 increased by more than 10 per cent. for both literacy and numeracy. This year saw continuing improvements in science, but results for literacy and numeracy levelled off. Although that was disappointing, the chief inspector acknowledged that
	"we cannot expect progress to be even, year on year,"
	and that
	"We should, however, remind ourselves of how far we have come."
	As levels of achievement rise, it is inevitably more difficult to maintain the rates of improvement that we have seen to date. As we move towards our goals, the challenge will be greater, but we are determined to meet it.
	At secondary level, too, management and leadership continue to improve, with the proportion of schools in which Ofsted judge these to be unsatisfactory now down to just one in 20. Achievement has also risen, with the Government's target of 50 per cent. of our children attaining five A to C grades at GCSE achieved one year ahead of schedule.
	The chief inspector reports that in most special schools, pupils are achieving well, and that that improvement has been particularly marked in schools for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. In the mainstream, too, the achievements of pupils with special educational needs are showing welcome improvement. As a result of the further improvements in teaching and leadership, the number of schools in special measures has fallen again, and those that do fall into special measures are recovering more quickly. This year, 137 schools were placed in special measures, compared to 230 the previous year, and 194 schools have improved sufficiently to remove them from special measures altogether.
	The report contains some encouraging findings, but we should not be complacent about the scale of the challenge still ahead of us. We have much more to do, as is also set out in the report. The chief inspector comments on
	"the variation in performance between schools."
	He says that
	"the gap between the highest and lowest attaining schools remains too large."
	Ofsted goes on to report that, while the gap between the highest and lowest performing schools is narrowing at primary level, it has widened at secondary level. Closing this achievement gap is one of the main aims of the Government's policies and we are determined to make even further progress. As the report notes, our literacy and numeracy strategies have closed the gap in primary schools, and we will further address the secondary school gap as part of our secondary schools reform.
	While standards of achievement are rising for the majority of our pupils, Ofsted believes that some children continue to be failed by the system. It has been a national disgrace that children in care leave school with so few academic qualifications. Our children in care programme shows that there are early signs of improvement, but being able to say that the latest figures show that only 37 per cent. of young people leaving care in 2000–01 obtained one or more GCSEs or GNVQs—up from 30 per cent. the previous year—reveals just how far we have to go with that group of people.
	The performance of certain ethnic groups is still one of significant under-achievement, but although there is still some way to go, improvements have been made. The youth cohort study published in January 2001 reveals a significant improvement in the achievement of many ethnic groups at GCSE level. Although there is as yet no similar national data source for the primary sector, the latest key stage 2 test results show that inner-city local education authorities with high ethnic minority populations are among the most improved in the country. This year we are introducing new national data collection arrangements, which will help the performance of ethnic minority pupils to be monitored locally and nationally. That will help us to ensure that resources are better targeted at need.
	I am pleased that HMCI draws attention to the value of the excellence in cities programme for pupils in our urban areas. It is already making an impact because standards in schools benefiting from the programme are rising faster than elsewhere. The latest key stage 3 English tests showed an improvement in inner-city schools four times the improvement elsewhere. I am progressively extending the programme to more schools in clusters of deprivation beyond the inner cities. Twelve new excellence clusters are now operating, and I intend 12 more to start in September. They will be in Barnet, Bishop Auckland, Crewe, Derby, High Wycombe, Hillingdon, Lancaster, Milton Keynes, Norwich, Peterborough, Stockport and Wigan.
	The fundamental challenge, of course, is to improve the quality of education for all our children. That is what we have set out to do through our White Paper, which is an agenda that aims for nothing short of the transformation of secondary education. That programme is given added weight by the report we have received today.
	At the core of secondary transformation is the key stage 3 strategy. Too much time and previous gain is lost in the transition from primary to secondary school and we know that dissatisfaction with schooling can take hold at that stage. We need to turn that around and use those early years of secondary education to build on achievements at primary level and to provide a solid platform for attainment in the 14-to-19 phase.
	We are investing £489 million in our key stage 3 strategy between now and 2003–04 and early feedback from Ofsted and schools is very encouraging. From September this school year, the strategy began to impact on 1.8 million of our children, building on the best of the literacy and numeracy strategies in primary schools, to achieve a similar step change in performance at secondary level.
	Schools will also have to be structured more to meet the needs of the individual pupil. We have made progress with individual pupil targeting, learning mentors for individual students and encouraging secondary schools to have a distinctive mission and ethos and to accept their responsibility to other schools and the wider education community. That is where beacon and specialist schools have an important role to play. We want all schools to develop a sense of mission and, in doing so, to develop centres of excellence and networks that lead to innovation and higher standards for all children.
	Yesterday, I announced the biggest ever expansion of the specialist schools programme. By September 2002, we shall have 1,000, each teaching a full and balanced curriculum, using their additional specialism as a catalyst for whole-school improvement and increasingly sharing that expertise with other schools.
	The best ideas on school improvement are so often developed in the schools themselves. We want our best schools to be the innovators of educational reform. That is why we are giving them greater autonomy and supporting innovation so that it has an impact on the whole system, but none of that can happen without teachers.
	The report acknowledges, as we do, that teacher recruitment and retention continue to pose a challenge, but the chief inspector acknowledges that the measures that we have introduced are beginning to bear fruit. Apart from rapidly increasing numbers of people starting training and joining the profession, the alternative routes are expanding fast too.
	Retention is mentioned by the chief inspector as a particular concern. A great deal has been asked of teachers and we need to make sure that they are supported to do their jobs. I know that work load is a key issue. I see giving teachers the time that they need to teach as critical to raising standards of achievement. At the end of April, the School Teachers Pay Review Body will make recommendations on work load.
	Behaviour in schools is reported by Ofsted to be generally good, but the poor behaviour of a minority of pupils is reported as a significant factor in teachers' decisions to leave the profession. To help teachers to tackle disruption effectively, we have expanded our programme of on-site learning support units and learning mentors. About 3,000 learning mentors have been recruited and 323 pupil referral units are providing more places with better quality teaching. Our Connexions service will also offer advice to young people throughout the country when it is rolled out nationally later this year.
	As The Times Educational Supplement survey reported last Friday, teaching is a profession on the up. It found that the typical teacher enjoys an improved standard of living and enjoys the job and that seven out of 10 teachers are satisfied with their jobs.
	The Ofsted report is an important document. Its value is in its independence. It demonstrates the real gains that have been made and continue to be made in our schools. It also signposts for us continuing challenges, which we intend to address in raising standards further still.
	The report states that one reason that teachers leave the profession is lack of esteem. They have no reason to think that their profession is anything other than one of the most important in this land. I hope that Members of the House will join me in paying tribute to teachers for what they have achieved for our children. We have it on Ofsted's authority that the quality of their work has never been better.

Damian Green: I thank the Secretary of State for giving me a copy of her statement in advance, and join her in praising Mike Tomlinson and his inspectors at Ofsted.
	The right hon. Lady was assiduous in picking out the positive aspects of the report, and of course no one can blame her for that. I too pay tribute to teachers and all others working in schools for the hard work they are putting in and the successes that they are seeing, but in her honest moments the right hon. Lady will admit that serious problems have been identified by the chief inspector, and that, alarmingly—she did not mention this—some are becoming worse year by year. The report reveals that the right hon. Lady's strategy of centralising and interfering as much as possible can yield some short-term successes, but it sows the seeds of its own destruction by demoralising the work force—the teachers whom she and I both admire.
	Let me start with the primary sector. As the House knows, it is the part of the school system that the Prime Minister thinks has been "sorted". I hope he reads the report, and notes that of Ofsted's six main findings on primary schools one is positive, three are neutral and two are negative. This, remember, is the Government's best area of attainment—but there are many questions that the Secretary of State did not address.
	Can the right hon. Lady tell us why she thinks reading standards have fallen among 11-year-olds, why performance in maths has become worse at the same stage, and why spelling is becoming worse in tests for 11-year-olds? By any standards, those are basic skills for our 11-year-old children. Can she also explain why Ofsted says that underperformance by boys—by comparison with girls—in English is becoming worse by the year?
	Will the right hon. Lady address questions relating to the curriculum? Ofsted says that all the primary head teachers it surveyed are finding it difficult to sustain as broad and balanced a curriculum as they would like. Indeed, using a bland phrase that it must have hoped no one would notice, it says that one school in five can provide a curriculum that is broad and exciting, and challenges pupils across the full range of national expectations.
	Let me translate. According to Ofsted, four out of five primary schools are not providing a broad, exciting and challenging curriculum. Is the right hon. Lady as alarmed by that finding as I am, and does she accept responsibility? Does she accept that the very strategies about which she boasted in her statement contribute to the narrowing of the curriculum?
	In the secondary sector, problems are getting worse under the right hon. Lady's stewardship. Can she tell us why the gap between high-performing and low- performing schools is becoming wider? Can she say what steps she is taking to reverse the erosion of foreign language teaching identified by Ofsted, which she did not mention? Why—most alarming—is truancy so rampant? Ofsted says that more than a quarter of our secondary schools have unsatisfactory attendance levels, and the figure rises to 37 per cent. among those that have been inspected fully. That is a terrible figure, which should really frighten the Secretary of State.
	Will the right hon. Lady address herself urgently to the underlying cause of these growing difficulties—the crisis of teacher retention, which has been brought about by some of the policies of which she is so proud? Ofsted says that the quality of teaching is in jeopardy in some schools, and that this is no longer an inner-city issue. Equally important are the findings that more teachers are being asked to teach outside their specialisms, and that the proportion of poor teaching is, in Ofsted's words, "considerably higher" among temporary or supply teachers—which is what we would expect.
	The right hon. Lady is asking teachers to do jobs for which they are not trained. Every interfering directive from her Department adds to teachers' work load, and persuades a few more to bale out for a quieter life. The Department is not the solution to the crisis in teacher numbers; it is the main cause of the problem.
	As Conservatives, we know that every day teachers, pupils, parents and governors put in an immense amount of hard work so that our schools can flourish. We worry that the interfering, centralising, bureaucratic way in which the Government behave towards schools and local government makes that task harder. The report shows that any improvements based on centralised command and control are fragile at best. Will the right hon. Lady heed its message and for once start trusting heads, teachers and everyone else in education to get on with their job?

Estelle Morris: I thought that that was a bit grudging. The hon. Gentleman started with a sentence or two of praise but his analysis quickly declined.
	I think that there is general agreement about the progress made. The chief inspector talks about the finest ever teaching, fewer lessons being taught unsatisfactorily, fewer schools going into special measures, and those that are in special measures being removed from them more quickly. That does not happen with a teaching work force who are demoralised and are not doing their job well. It has happened because there is a true partnership between central Government and local authorities to support teachers, governors, classroom assistants and others to raise standards in schools.
	Let us talk about central prescription. If the Government had not introduced the literacy and numeracy strategies, improvement would not have taken place in the schools that needed it most. The good schools—those that were already improving and those achieving at the highest level—would have taken what the literacy and numeracy strategies had to offer, but those that were probably not teaching effectively would not have done so.
	Teachers have got to the stage where they take from the literacy and numeracy strategies, bring their professional judgment to bear and mould those strategies to the needs of individual pupils. If we had not insisted that teachers address the problem and if we had not supported them through money for professional development, that would not have happened over the past five years. Tory Members, particularly Tory spokesmen and spokeswomen, are the only people in this country who do not acknowledge that the literacy and numeracy strategies have been the success story of this Department.
	Other things would not have happened without the Government, who are accused of central prescription. Mike Tomlinson said in his report that where support and effort are targeted through the excellence in the cities and education action zone initiatives, progress is made at a faster rate than elsewhere. That is a success.
	We were always straight about the rate of progress. We always said that in the first four years we would prioritise primary and early years education. We did so. We delivered and it worked. At the second election, we always said that we would prioritise secondary education. That is exactly what we will do because we are addressing the difficulties at secondary school. We will build on our work in the first term. The results show that with targeted effort, financial support and partnership between the Government and others, standards can be raised.
	I share the concerns of the hon. Gentleman that no progress has been made on truancy and attendance. A number of people, including the Government, must do all that they can to ensure that we improve that record. First, there is a responsibility on parents. Mike Tomlinson notes that 80 per cent. of children who miss school do so with the permission of the parents. As I say repeatedly to parents, letting their child miss school when there is no need damages their child's life chances. We must get that message across.
	Schools need to do their best and they must be more assiduous in following up early absence as quickly as possible. We need to give support by spreading good practice and through measures such as electronic registration, but the hon. Gentleman is right; the report says that little progress has been made on truancy. It remains a concern. If children are not at school, they cannot learn. If they do not learn in our society, their life chances when they leave education are not as good as they should be.
	On teacher recruitment and retention, Mike Tomlinson says in the report:
	"Although nationally there are very few teaching posts with no one to fill them and most pupils have a suitably qualified teacher to teach them, there are real problems in recruiting teachers and in retaining them."
	I know that. It is precisely why the Government have introduced golden hellos and training salaries. In the Education Bill currently before Parliament, we are introducing measures to pay off loans. It is not the case that there are now fewer teachers than there were last year. In fact, there are 7,000 more teachers than there were last year and 12,000 more teachers than there were in 1997. More people are going into teacher training than at any time during the past decade. In the past year alone, 7,000 more teaching posts have been created because heads have more money in their hands. The dilemma is that additional money has led to more vacancies and I have never pretended anything other than that.
	I conclude by quoting the chief inspector again:
	"Action is being taken by the Government to deal with these concerns, but there are no quick fixes."

Damian Green: What about language teaching?

Estelle Morris: The United Kingdom has a long history of failure to teach modern languages. It is a cyclical problem and it is not improving. As we teach languages more ineffectively, fewer students study them at A-level, fewer take a university degree in them and fewer train to teach languages. In due course, the Government will announce how we intend to tackle the problem.

Barry Sheerman: My right hon. Friend will know that the Select Committee on Education and Skills will shortly examine the report in some detail with the chief inspector, so I shall not ask a substantial question, but I welcome her decision to make a statement to the House today. Does she agree that the atmosphere in the school teaching profession generally has much improved with the appointment of Mike Tomlinson as chief inspector? As Chairman of the Select Committee I see great evidence of that as I travel round the country visiting schools. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new partnership is a healthy one? The chief inspector is answerable to the House through the Select Committee and we have a healthy, but not a cosy relationship with him. We have detected a clear change for the better under Mike Tomlinson's reign as chief inspector and we look forward to interviewing David Bell when he takes over.

Estelle Morris: I am also a fan of Mike Tomlinson, who has done an excellent job since taking it on at relatively short notice. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee shares my view. There is a real difference in tone, because teachers are more confident. They know that they are teaching more effectively; their performance is better and children are getting better results. It is important that Ofsted remains independent. I am glad that my hon. Friend is not too cosy with Mike Tomlinson and I trust that he will not be too cosy with David Bell either.

Phil Willis: I also thank the Secretary of State for giving us an advance copy of her statement and I share the interest of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) in the fact that this is the first time we have had a statement in the House on an HMI report—indeed on the very day when we are short of time to discuss the Education Bill. I draw no conclusions from that.
	I add my thanks to Mike Tomlinson. It is not just that teachers are more confident; Mike Tomlinson has created a new ethos within Ofsted—a genuine sense that the purpose of inspection is to improve schools and that Ofsted is working with teachers rather than against them. We certainly wish Mike Tomlinson well when he goes to Hackney—it is certainly an improvement on The Daily Telegraph.
	I also join the Secretary of State in congratulating our schools, our teachers and our local education authorities. This report is the biggest compliment to our teaching force that we have seen for many years. I suggest that the Secretary of State put on all her literature a little statement saying that teaching in 2000-01 was the best ever. That would be a powerful statement to put on a press release and send out to all teachers.
	I also welcome the compliment that the inspector's report paid to special schools, which rarely get mentioned. I hope the House will accept that the statement that they are working with children with emotional and behavioural difficulties far better than ever before is a real compliment.
	We are also delighted that far more schools are being turned round much more quickly from needing special measures or showing serious signs of weakness. I wonder whether the Secretary of State will have the grace to praise local education authorities, because the vast majority of those schools have been turned round not by private sector companies but by such authorities.
	However, the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) is absolutely right to say that a lot of messages in the report are not being specifically addressed. How the Secretary of State proposes to narrow the gap between high- performing and low-performing schools is a mystery. We were told that education action zones will do the job, but she has abandoned them and one of the great planks of her policy is therefore missing. How does she propose to address the huge problem of the underperformance of children from Afro-Caribbean, Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities? In particular, what plans has she to recruit teachers from those communities? Until we do that, we will not make the necessary impact on that underperformance.
	How does the Secretary of State intend to correct the finding of this year's report—and, indeed, of last year's—that too many children are being taught by non-specialists at key stage 3? The curriculum and staffing survey should have been carried out in 2000, but it was not. When does she intend to carry out that essential research, so that we can make proper plans for the future supply of teachers?
	Can the Secretary of State also explain how we will provide an adequate supply of teachers—a point that the report describes as critical? In September, delayed retirements that were initiated under the previous Conservative Government will come to fruition, and more teachers will retire this year than ever before. Given that recruitment targets have been missed every year since 1997, how will we deal with that problem, particularly in key subjects such as mathematics, science and modern languages?
	It is all very well for the Secretary of State to quote The Times Educational Supplement survey; in fact, she should quote the evidence in the report, which shows that one in five teachers are leaving within three years. What is she going to do to address that horrendous problem?

Estelle Morris: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not deny me the opportunity to quote The Times Educational Supplement—it provided the first decent headline on this subject in about five years. Give me a break—it was a joy to read on Friday morning. I sometimes think that our Department's headed notepaper has too many words at the bottom, but I take the general point that there is an onus on all of us to praise, and I certainly accept my responsibility to ensure that I am as generous when I give praise as when I criticise failure or demand even more from teachers. We must get the balance right. Teachers often hear words of criticism but not praise. We do not want to soft-soap them or to make their life easy—indeed, they do not want that. They want us to recognise good performance, and to challenge them when necessary.
	The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) raised many issues, and I too am delighted at the performance of schools that deal with emotional and behavioural difficulties. Theirs is the toughest job in teaching and it is more difficult now than ever, because of the nature of the society in which such children are growing up.
	The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) mentioned closing the achievement gap, and I want to return to that issue because I may not have dealt with it fully. He will acknowledge that, as Mike Tomlinson says, we have closed the achievement gap in primary schools. We did so through a universal programme for the literacy and numeracy strategies, but we also provided extra targeted help for those who were under-achieving. Where there was an entitlement to resources and training, every single primary school in the country was offered extra training and support, as well as help for those who needed it most. If my memory serves me right, we began with the 15 per cent. with the lowest level of achievement each year, and moved on to the next 15 per cent. We raised the standards year on year, and that is exactly what we will do with key stage 3.
	We will have a universal strategy for key stage 3, and every single school in the country will feel its impact. Every school will get money and every teacher will get training, but those who need it most will get more help from the consultants—in fact, those schools will get more of whatever is going. What we do not want to do—and the hon. Gentleman will recognise the danger—is to hold the top schools back while the bottom ones catch up. I know that he would not wish that to happen either. The report shows that standards in the least well performing secondary schools have risen, but so have those of the top schools.
	Our approach is always to give help to everyone, and to give extra, targeted help to those who need it most. I am confident about that approach, because it worked in primary schools. We have learned from that experience. We are good learners, and I hope that our secondary school strategy will have the same impact.
	I also take seriously the difficulty caused by the lack of specialist teachers in early key stage 3. We have already discussed the situation regarding modern foreign languages, and we know how difficult it is to get enough maths teachers. However, I have always been straight enough to say that I cannot promise that we will recruit for teaching 40 per cent. of the maths graduates leaving university this year. That is the proportion that we need to reach our target.
	We have to do more, and the key stage 3 strategy allows us to train teachers to teach maths who have not achieved the necessary qualifications. People who do not have degrees need extra teaching; they do not deserve to be driven from the classroom. We have to tackle the problem on all fronts.
	The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough knows that we have made progress in recruiting teachers to teach maths, and I shall not go through the list. However, I accept that more needs to be done with regard to training those who are already in schools but teaching out of their subject. That is an integral part of the key stage 3 strategy.
	The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough mentioned the problem of recruiting ethnic minority teachers. Again, we must break a cycle—people who do not do well at school do not go to university because of their bad experience of school, and they choose not to go back to school. Some years ago, the Teacher Training Agency agreed to have targets for the recruitment of ethnic minority teachers. Progress is slow, as it involves breaking a cultural tradition.
	The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough will know that most progress on the matter is being made in areas such as Tower Hamlets. In inner-city Birmingham, sometimes more than half of the people working in a school are from ethnic minorities. That is good, but we must keep to the targets. Advice from any quarter—inside the House, and outside it—on how we can do more in regard to recruitment of ethnic minority staff will be welcomed. I know that the notion of a role model is very important for many youngsters going through secondary school.

Bridget Prentice: I am deeply disappointed that only three of the four outstanding schools in Lewisham—Brindishe, St. Winifred's and New Woodlands—are in my constituency. However, another school in my constituency—Launcelot—is coming out of special measures. The progress being made in my area is therefore remarkable.
	Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about how outstanding schools can help others in the same borough to achieve more? Will she also say something more about the problem of truancy? She will know about Lewisham council's initiative on truancy, and the consultation that is in hand at present. What does she believe should be done to ensure that children who become disaffected with school return to education and become achievers?

Estelle Morris: I congratulate my hon. Friend on having three outstanding schools in her constituency. There must have been an awful lot of Ofsted inspections in her area this year, but I hope that she will send the schools my congratulations. I especially congratulate the school that has come out of special measures. It is tough for a school to go into special measures, and it is tough while those measures apply, but it should be an immensely joyous moment for staff when a school comes out of special measures. Today is a day of celebration for those teachers, as well as for the staff in the couple of hundred schools in the same position. I also pay tribute to the work that Lewisham has done.
	Schools that are not performing well should learn from the ones that are. The answers can be gleaned from good teachers, not from Government. Our job is to make the links, and many of the initiatives and structural changes proposed in the Education Bill to be discussed later are about freeing up and encouraging good schools to twin with underperforming schools. In that way, staff can learn from one another.
	It is important to remember that learning is not a one-way process. I have never known a good school help an underperforming one and not learn something of value. I hope that that will remain the case in Lewisham and elsewhere.

Patrick McLoughlin: The Secretary of State said that, in their first Parliament, the Government concentrated on primary schools. Will she therefore offer a little more explanation of what appears on page 22 of the chief inspector's report? In one of his main findings, the chief inspector states:
	"Many aspects of primary education have again shown some improvement this year, but in some key areas there has been little or no measurable progress."
	What is the right hon. Lady going to do to improve that over the next 12 months?

Estelle Morris: Transforming 17,000 primary schools, with 17,000 head teachers and governing bodies and hundreds of thousands of teachers, will take some time. The mess we inherited after 20 years of Tory misrule was such that—I apologise to the House—it will take us slightly more than four years to put everything right. However, I am immensely proud of what the Government have done and immensely proud of the progress that has been made in primary schools. Yes, we shall take on the progress that still needs to be made. Yes, we shall look at closing the gap further. Yes, we shall look at those schools that are still in special measures. Yes, we shall look at the underperformance of ethnic minority pupils. What is absolutely clear, however—and not just because I say it, but because Ofsted and Her Majesty's chief inspector say it—is that there is more progress than falling back. As Mike Tomlinson says, the report is a good one and primary schools are indeed a success story.

David Clelland: The Secretary of State and the Government deserve our congratulations, as well as our thanks for the continued success of the Government's education policies, for their recognition that more needs to be done and for their commitment to do it. Is my right hon. Friend aware that Dunston Hill community primary school in my constituency has been singled out in the report as being particularly successful? Will she join me in congratulating the teachers and, in particular, the pupils on their hard work in achieving that? Does she agree that the school thoroughly deserves to be awarded beacon status?
	May I also draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the hard work being done in Hadrian special school in Newcastle, which is a model of how to help and assist young people with special educational needs?

Estelle Morris: I am happy to do that. If I heard my hon. Friend rightly, that sounded like a bid for beacon status. I am sure that the school stands a good chance and that it will be considered in due course. I also hope that those schools gain recognition locally. The media in my hon. Friend's area give education good and positive support. During the next few weeks, I hope that the performance of schools that have been nominated as outstanding will truly be recognised and rewarded.
	It is important to remember that some of the schools in that list serve the most challenging areas of the country. They have the most difficult job—breaking the historical link between poverty and underachievement. That is what lies behind the words in the report. My hon. Friend's constituency includes many such areas and I am delighted to join him in his tribute.

Julie Kirkbride: I agree with the Secretary of State that there is much to celebrate as regards the success of our schools outlined in the Ofsted report. However, as a fair person, the right hon. Lady will acknowledge that the improvements in our schools did not take place over five years—they go further back than her period in office.
	I pay particular tribute to a school in my constituency that was mentioned in dispatches—St. John's middle school. The Secretary of State will be aware that there are many outstanding schools in my patch and we offer our congratulations to St. John's on its mention this year.
	May I ask the right hon. Lady about her plans for the teaching of foreign languages? After many years of relative failure, that is a great disappointment to all of us. Does the right hon. Lady have any plans to exploit our links with the European Union—for example, by creating teacher scholarships or initiating teacher exchanges—to tap into the resources available to our partners in Europe to provide competent modern language training?

Estelle Morris: The hon. Lady's comments on foreign languages are positive. My reply is similar to the one I gave the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) about maths teachers. If we carry on in the same way, there will be no change and things will continue to get worse. I hope that the hon. Lady can be patient because in the not too distant future we shall make an announcement about the teaching of modern languages. As she suggests, we should use modern foreign language expertise wherever it may be—using our connections not only with schools in Europe, but with language departments in universities and elsewhere. We should exploit that. Imaginative and creative thinking will break the logjam. I very much hope that when we make further announcements, the hon. Lady will find much to applaud, but I accept that we have much to do in order to catch up. I feel a great sense of shame when I meet my European counterparts and they talk about the quality of English teaching in their country, given our lack of ability to teach foreign languages at all in primary schools—let alone teach them effectively in secondary schools.

Joan Walley: When my right hon. Friend makes her announcement on foreign languages, will she examine the way in which Endon high school is trying to improve its teaching of modern languages?
	I welcome and appreciate the hard work that has gone into the report. In Stoke-on-Trent and in Staffordshire, we are starting to see real improvements on the ground. I hope that my right hon. Friend will use the report to persuade her Cabinet colleagues that we need urgently to review the standard spending assessments and the area cost adjustments.
	The report highlights the outstanding achievement of St. Margaret Ward Roman Catholic high school. The inspector says:
	"It achieves very high standards in art and music because teachers have very high expectations to which pupils respond very well."
	Robbie Williams, who is an ex-pupil of that school, has donated £50,000 towards specialist college status and is absolutely desperate—as am I, as well as the six primary schools that are feeder schools to that school in Stoke-on-Trent—to get specialist college status for the performing arts. When my right hon. Friend considers the next round in March, will she look very closely at what the inspector has said? I hope that it will not be too long before I am welcoming the fact that we have achieved that specialist college status in Stoke-on-Trent.

Estelle Morris: My hon. Friend is a fearsome advocate for the schools in her constituency. The area started from a low base and has been traditionally neglected in allocating additional resources. It certainly suffers from not having the best standing in the standard spending assessment allocation table. I grant all that, but my hon. Friend will not like what I am going to say. I certainly look forward to a further application for specialist school status from the school in her constituency that she mentions, but that teaches us that being an outstanding school is not sufficient in itself to achieve specialist school status. Achieving that status is about schools working with other schools, spreading their expertise elsewhere and taking on even more demanding targets and using the extra resources to meet them, but it is clear that that school has very good foundations on which to work. I know how disappointed the school was not to be successful this time, but I hope that the report gives it the confidence to try again.

David Heath: I thank the Secretary of State for the fact that, in the list of schools accorded specialist schools status yesterday, she included King Arthur's school, Wincanton, and Frome community college, which are in my constituency. I congratulate the governing bodies of those schools on all their hard work. That status brings an enormous benefit to the local community and the schools with which it interacts. However, all schools should have access to the extra resources that allow them to develop their capabilities. The right hon. Lady may recognise the fact that governing bodies go through agonies in trying to make the areas of excellence in their schools conform to the established framework, underpinning the whole curriculum and not just a single subject. Does she accept that there may be an argument for more flexibility in the categories of specialist schools to enable those schools to have the freedom to follow their noses towards the excellence that they can provide in the local community?

Estelle Morris: I am pleased that two schools in the hon. Gentleman's constituency were designated as specialist schools. He is probably pleased that his hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, who speaks from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, did not have the chance to abolish the status before his schools achieved it. The Liberal Democrats have more than spent the penny on income tax; they do not have enough money left to grant all the money to all the schools that might want specialist school status.
	I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about the sorts of specialism. We have expanded the categories this session, as he knows. Our minds are never totally closed to what will happen in the future, but it is probably important that we develop the criteria in a way that is manageable for us, by working with our partners, as we see the demand arise. For example, in developing engineering schools, we have worked with the Engineering Employers Federation and the universities, which find very difficult to recruit people for engineering degrees.
	I would not want to say, "You have a specialism in whatever you like and let us know." I know that that was not what the hon. Gentleman was suggesting, but there would be a real danger that such an approach would undermine the rigour of the system. I assure him that we will expand the programme as quickly as we can, as standards rise. We will not say that we will never again consider the need for further specialism to be added to our current list.

Jonathan R Shaw: I associate myself with the remarks about Mike Tomlinson. He has brought a different tone to the Ofsted inspection, which has benefited the process. My right hon. Friend may care to note that The Daily Telegraph has dispensed with the employment of a certain columnist. I do not know whether any assessment has been made of the individual's competence.

Phil Willis: They probably deserve each another.

Jonathan R Shaw: Indeed. When my right hon. Friend introduces the Green Paper on the curriculum for 14 to 19-year-olds, will she take account of the fact that many boys in secondary schools find that a purely academic curriculum does not suit their needs? That may be one of the factors that explains the lack of improvement on truancy. If a curriculum is completely alien to young people and they do not feel that it meets their aspirations, they are not likely to embrace it with much enthusiasm, and the result will be more truancy.
	On special measures, is my right hon. Friend concerned that schools that are designated as having serious weaknesses may slip into special measures? Perhaps local authorities might focus their good work on schools in the serious weaknesses category, so that they do not get worse before they get better.

Estelle Morris: On disaffection, truancy and disengagement from the curriculum, I know that my hon. Friend did not suggest this, but the mere fact of young people being fed up at school does not mean that they should play truant. There should be no misunderstanding about that—there is never an excuse for not sticking with school. However, it may sometimes be an explanation.
	For too long, this country has not valued vocational work. The routes and pathways through to higher education and continued learning for youngsters who are interested in vocational work have not been as clear as they should be. I have always paid tribute to the last Conservative Government, who tried to put that right with general national vocational qualifications and national vocational qualifications. Although their introduction did not work as it should have done, I have always said that they were an honest attempt.
	We will shortly introduce our plans for 14 to 19-year-olds, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be pleased with that and will feel that it goes some way to meeting young people's needs.

John Randall: The Secretary of State will know my concerns about recruitment and retention in the London borough of Hillingdon. I therefore give a cautious welcome to Hillingdon's inclusion in the excellence clusters. Will she congratulate the London borough of Hillingdon on the priority that it places on education? In particular, will she congratulate two schools in my constituency—Abbotsfield school and West Drayton primary school—that have come out of special measures? May I also take this opportunity, on behalf of those schools, to invite her to visit them, so that she can see the excellent work that they have done?

Estelle Morris: I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating those schools. I know that, as a local Member, he takes a strong interest in what goes on in the schools in his constituency, and I have received delegations from him. He has always been present on those occasions on which I have attended Hillingdon schools in the past. He is an enthusiast for education, which is greatly to be welcomed.
	I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is pleased that his constituency is in an excellence cluster. It will make a difference. Like beacon status and specialist school status, the excellence cluster is a part of Government policy that people criticise but which, if one is on offer, they want for themselves. I do not have a problem with that. I have no doubt that I shall return to Hillingdon in the future, and I shall certainly bear his kind invitation in mind. Meanwhile, if he could pass on my best wishes and congratulations to the two schools, I should be grateful.

Michael Clapham: I welcome this year's Ofsted report. I also point out to my right hon. Friend that the results in primary schools are reflected clearly in the primary schools in Barnsley. If anybody has any doubts about that, they should visit the primary schools in my constituency.
	I want to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to achievement in secondary schools in coalfield areas generally. It is clear that schools in those areas lag behind. Will she consider what additional measures may be taken in education action zones, which have been very good in coalfield areas, to ensure that we can lift the attainment rate to the national average as quickly as possible?

Estelle Morris: My hon. Friend has made a very fair point. If we look at performance in the coalfield communities, we see that the nature of their difficulties is very different from those in the inner cities. The coalfield community of Barnsley has underperformed, as has my city of Birmingham, but the causes of that underperformance are totally different. As ever, we need to examine why that underperformance is taking place, and then provide targeted help. A one-size-fits-all approach to raising achievement is not appropriate. I have visited the coalfield communities where it is traditional, as it is in some other areas, to work in one sector. As a result, there has not always been a connection between doing well in education and getting work. My hon. Friend might not share that view, but historically there has been a link between living in an area and getting a job. We need to change that culture and raise people's expectations.
	We should learn from each other. I know that the coalfield communities form a strong network. My hon. Friend knows that we are working with local authorities in such areas, especially Yorkshire. By providing extra support in the key stage 3 strategy and by ensuring that communities benefit from the best of the education action zones and the excellence cluster, and that they benefit from the "Aim Higher" campaign, which is designed to encourage young people to aspire to higher education, we are sure that over the years we will make progress. I am delighted to have my hon. Friend as a partner in that.

Mark Hoban: I congratulate Uplands primary school, which is one of several outstanding schools in my constituency. Another outstanding school is Cams Hill secondary school. Before Christmas, its head teacher had to deal with his recruitment and retention crisis by recruiting teachers in Sainsbury's. In that context, I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the key issue outlined on page 90 of the Ofsted report, which says:
	"Teacher shortages are leading to the increased use of temporary supply teachers and the use of permanent teachers to teach subjects in which they are not adequately qualified; this commonly leads to weaker teaching, lower expectations and less effective learning."
	What impact will that have on standards? Does not the Secretary of State think that that will put them at risk, especially in light of the recruitment and retention crisis in teaching, particularly in London and the south-east?

Estelle Morris: I shall not go over the figures again, but they show not only that there are more teachers but that more are in training and more have applied to train. It is common sense that continuity of teaching helps children to learn most effectively. Even short-term contracts are not as effective as a teacher being in a school for a longer period. Of course I accept that.
	We also have to accept, however, that every school will need supply teachers at some stage, either to cover for teacher absence, because someone has to teach the class, or to cover for teachers who are engaged in professional development. One of our dilemmas is that the increase in demand for supply teachers is partly due to the fact that we are providing more opportunities for professional development. We have reflected on that and know that we need to do something about it. That is why we have taken action. Unlike other Governments, we are ensuring that training opportunities are also available for supply teachers so that they can be trained in literacy and numeracy. It is not fair to them or the children to put them in schools without the training that they need.
	Many people, especially women, would sooner work as a supply teacher than have a permanent contract because it gives them flexibility. My opinion is not significantly different from the hon. Gentleman's on that. I do not want to demean or downgrade the work that supply teachers choose to do, but I would never claim that a supply teacher is preferable to a permanent teacher if that is the head's first choice, because a permanent teacher offers the child continuous teaching. That is why we have put so much effort and resource into improving recruitment and retention even further.

Helen Jones: My right hon. Friend rightly drew attention to the report's comments on the variation in progress between schools and the need to raise standards at key stage 3. Will she look at improving the links between primary schools that have achieved beacon status for English and maths and the early years of secondary school, because there is much that they can teach other schools about the best way to make progress in those subjects?
	Will my right hon. Friend also consider suggesting to Ofsted that it examine the way in which schools use new technology to improve their teaching, because some schools are far better at utilising that than others? While she is considering the need to provide extra training for those who are teaching maths but are not qualified to do so, will she not forget the large number of teachers who have for many years been teaching English in secondary schools when their first qualification is in another subject? Will she ensure that they receive extra training as well?

Estelle Morris: The answer to all those questions is yes. My hon. Friend made an important point about primary school literacy and numeracy teachers teaching in secondary schools. I must tell secondary teachers that they have been rather slow in waking up to progress in primary schools. The more they go to primary schools to see what is happening, and the more primary schools work with them, the greater is the progress. The only change for a child between years 6 and 7 is the six-week summer holiday. However, we have changed the whole system—the school, the timetable, the routine, the hours, the teachers, the expectations, the lot—and we have not managed that transition as well as we should have done.
	My hon. Friend made an excellent suggestion. We have made available £10,500 for all secondary schools from this April, and they can spend some of that on exactly that sort of teacher exchange. I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend's other suggestions, including making sure that teachers without an English qualification who are teaching English get extra support; all of those issues are being addressed by the Government.

Chris Grayling: May I start by endorsing the comments of hon. Members about our teaching profession, whose members deserve great credit for many aspects of their work that are highlighted in the report? The Secretary of State makes disparaging comments about the previous Government. Given that she came to the House a few months ago to praise our educational system after the publication of the report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development which highlighted the excellent performance of our 15-year-olds, she would do well to remember that those 15-year-olds spent nine of their 11 years of education under the Conservative Government.
	When heads in my constituency tell me that they are losing young teachers because they "want to get a life", should I believe them? When they tell me that they are deluged by bureaucracy and that their jobs, as well as those of their teaching staff and their governing body, are becoming more difficult all the time because of Government initiatives, should I believe them? When they tell me that they are increasingly frustrated that they are not getting support from the Government on discipline in the classroom, should I believe them? And when the chief inspector of schools starts to highlight the future impact of those issues on future examination performance, should we believe him?

Estelle Morris: The hon. Gentleman raised a number of issues. I have acknowledged again today that we ask more of our teachers now than we have ever done before. Teaching is such an important job; the truth is that we would not have achieved the highest standards in primary education without asking more of teachers. The Government have launched a lot of initiatives. Should I believe the teachers who tell me that our initiatives have raised standards? The initiatives are not bad, but teachers find it difficult to manage them along with everything else that they are asked to do.
	It is not just a case of too much paper and too many initiatives; the problem is more complicated than that. I do not want teachers to stop pupil-level target setting, or stop monitoring achievement and sending information to parents. I do not want them to stop looking at best evidence or what other schools do well. However, each of those demanding tasks asks more of teachers. The challenge is more sophisticated than we may think; it involves looking at things that teachers do not need to do, and providing support from people with other skills wherever possible. I outlined my ideas on that in a speech to the Social Market Foundation last year, and it is the core of what is being considered by the School Teachers Review Body.
	I tend to think that the hon. Gentleman should not believe teachers who say that the Government are not offering extra support to deal with bad discipline. There are 3,000 learning mentors in schools; Ofsted said today that they are making a difference. There are 1,000 learning support units in schools, which were not in existence in 1997; Ofsted and teachers say that they are making a difference. However, that does not detract from the fact that, doubtless, there are heads in the hon. Gentleman's constituency who find it tough. They must be aware that we are aware of that; parents need to do what they can. However, the problem is not caused by lack of support; it is the nature of the challenge which many teachers face today from the children who attend school.

David Chaytor: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which is a tribute to her work and that of her predecessor, both of whom presided over one of the most rapid periods of improvement in achievement in British education that the country has ever witnessed. On the OECD report on the programme for international student assessment, while I welcome the enormous achievement of the United Kingdom, is it not the case that those countries that systematically performed better than the UK—I am thinking of Canada, Finland and South Korea in particular—had adopted universal comprehensive secondary education? Does my right hon. Friend draw any conclusions from that? Does it not remain a feature of our system that the impact of the individual school on the pupils' achievement is greater than in almost any other OECD country? Is my right hon. Friend convinced that the move to greater diversity will deal with the problems of differential achievement by individual schools?
	Finally, my right hon. Friend mentioned the Ofsted research on the excellence in cities programme and the rate of improvement in excellence in cities schools. Is there in the report any similar evidence on faith schools and their levels of achievement or rate of improvement? If not, has Ofsted produced any relevant information since the 2000-01 report was published?

Estelle Morris: My hon. Friend raises a number of points. With regard to the PISA report, there may have been one country—I will not cite it, as I cannot recall exactly—that was better than us in all the aspects that were tested. Although in each of the areas there were between two and four countries that performed at a higher level than we did, it was not always the same countries. There was no pattern of our always being outperformed by five or six countries.
	As far as I know, the PISA report made no correlation with the way in which schools were organised. However, it stated, and it is right, that the impact of the individual school was greater in the UK than in other countries, as was the link with poverty and social class, which was a greater determinant of educational success in this country than in any of our competitor nations. That, as my hon. Friend knows, concerns me a great deal and we need to examine it.
	My hon. Friend would no doubt agree that that matches up with the view of Mike Tomlinson that there is still too great a difference between the performance of different schools in similar circumstances. We are a data-rich education system. Because we have those data, we must learn from the best. The good news is that for each of the categories in which there is underperformance, we can see that there are schools in similar circumstances that are performing well.
	With respect to faith schools, I am not aware of anything in the Ofsted report that particularly highlights the performance of faith schools. I have never made the argument that faith schools are by nature higher performers than schools that are not faith schools, and I will not make that argument when I speak later on the amendment to the Education Bill dealing with that subject. The argument is a different one. I have always said that I think that faith schools are confident in their value base, and there is often a natural link between school and home that stands them in good stead. Equally, I have always said that schools which do not have a faith base often have a strong value base and similar links between home and school. Later, perhaps we can explore more thoroughly than we should now some of the issues raised by my hon. Friend.

John Pugh: With reference to religious education, the Ofsted report states:
	"In schools having a full inspection, the match of teachers and support staff to the demands of the subject are worse in RE than in any other subject, being good in only three out of ten schools."
	What conclusion does the Minister draw from that, and what does she propose to do about it?

Estelle Morris: I draw the conclusion that teaching in RE is not as good as in other subjects. The measures for recruitment, retention and training need to be assiduously followed. To make sure that we get the message right, I pay tribute to those RE teachers who do teach to a high standard. There is a danger sometimes that our conversations in the House go outside and are misinterpreted, in this case as damning all RE teachers. Clearly, the matter has been raised as requiring further improvement. Religious education is an important part of the national curriculum and is entitled to be taught as effectively as any other. If deficiencies have been identified, they ought to be addressed.

Charlotte Atkins: I welcome my right hon. Friend's justified praise of teachers and school management. I note from the report that, although significant improvement has been made in the teaching of information and communications technology, further improvement is necessary. Does my right hon. Friend therefore welcome the development in secondary schools of NVQs and GNVQs in ICT, which recognise that ICT is a key skill, alongside numeracy and literacy? It is a subject that appeals right across the ability range. What role do specialist technology schools such as Clough Hall in Kidsgrove have in trying to improve ICT teaching, not just in their local area but right across the LEA?
	Now that they have a wider role under this Government than under the Tory Government, such development could be of key importance in improving the level of ICT teaching and leadership.

Estelle Morris: I agree. Many adults have not yet caught up with children in terms of ICT competence and confidence, and that is true for teachers as well as other adults. In our first term, we ensured that a great deal of resources—more than £1.8 billion over six years—was spent on ICT infrastructure and on training, but there is still a long way to go. I am pleased that progress has been made this year. As teachers learn, more developments occur, so we are constantly chasing the latest developments in ICT. She identifies exactly what needs to be done. Schools such as Clough Hall, which I know about from discussions with her, have a key role in ensuring that they share their teachers either through ICT links—including well-equipped specialist technology courses—or face-to-face training.
	My hon. Friend spoke about spreading good practice across the LEA. Those involved should be more ambitious about that and listen for the opportunities that we offer in respect of being national leaders and creating links with other countries. If we want to be world class in education systems, we must look beyond our boundaries. She will know that there is a list of partner schools with which those who are involved must work in her constituency, and beyond. When they come to reapply for specialist school status, they will be judged just as critically on how well they have carried out their community links as on how much they have raised standards in their school. I hope that that message will go back and encourage them to work hard on both counts.

Colin Challen: I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. In doing so, I should like to declare an interest as a governor of Morley Newlands primary school in my constituency, which is this week celebrating an excellent Ofsted report. As a governor, I think that we should recognise—this has been an occasion of praise and recognition—the work of school governors in helping us to achieve high standards. They give their time freely and have had to learn many more special skills in the past few years. The complexity that they now face is considerable. Will she not only join me in praising school governors for their work, but suggest ways in which we might recruit more governors? In certain areas, there are problems with recruitment of good-quality governors.

Estelle Morris: I am delighted that Morley Newlands school has been listed in the report and I congratulate it. Again, I thank governors for their work, as I did at the start of my statement. They ask for little reward or recognition and certainly no pay, and give generously of their time, energy and enthusiasm. A good school is the result of the partnership of everybody concerned, including the governing body. Like my hon. Friend, I worry that the schools that need the most effective governors sometimes find it most difficult to recruit. That is why, some three to four years ago, we financed the one-stop shop for recruiting, training and encouraging governors, so that governors could be recruited and placed in the schools that need them most. If things are tough and there are a lot of other pressures, head teachers will have neither the time nor the energy to go out and recruit governors, and yet they need them for support. The one-stop shop has been successful and we will continue to offer the support that it needs. None the less, I say to all hon. Members that they can also play a role. When they meet business people or others, including concerned citizens who want to play a part in education, they should direct them to schools in their constituencies where good governors are needed. I know that that will be welcomed.

Clive Efford: My right hon. Friend is aware that my education authority is carrying out restructuring throughout the service, which has placed a burden on some aspects of education in Greenwich. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to all the schools in our LEA without exception for the hard work that they are doing to bring about the improvements in education that we all want to see.
	I also welcome today's statement and the inspector's report. We can only reflect on how much more we might have achieved in our early years in government if we had got rid of Mr. Woodhead sooner.
	A friend who has worked for many years in a secondary school as a maths teacher told me that the numeracy hour means that, for the first time in his experience, young people in their first year at secondary school have a grounding in maths that allows him to start to extend them from the day that they arrive. That is testament to the Government's changes in education.
	I want to make a plea about recruitment and retention in London. The cost of living, especially housing costs, is high in the capital city. Those costs bite in many schools. We solved the problem in the police service by dealing with the housing allocation two years ago. Training colleges in London are now full of police recruits. That is the only solution to the problem in London.

Estelle Morris: I am pleased by my hon. Friend's comments about maths. Many secondary school teachers have had to rewrite the maths curriculum to build on what has happened in primary schools. It is therefore important that the key stage 3 strategy for 11 to 14-year-olds takes into account children's improved mathematical and literary ability.
	I accept my hon. Friend's point about housing costs, which are a major cause of difficulty in recruiting in London. There appears to be a pattern: young teachers work in London for a year or two but move elsewhere when they want to buy their homes or have families. In his previous post, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister launched the £250 million starter home initiative from which education was a major beneficiary. However, I am not complacent, and I know that there is a challenge not only for my Department but throughout Government.

Ann Cryer: I thank my right hon. Friend for the statement and the report, especially those aspects that deal with ethnic minority children, of whom there are many in my constituency.
	We have dealt a little with truancy. Will my right hon. Friend comment on parent-organised truancy, which has a devastating effect on children in my constituency? I fear that it may also have a long-term effect.
	I want to comment on the remarks of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) about recruiting teachers from ethnic minorities and the good role models that they would make in some of our ethnic minority schools. An increasing number of young women in Keighley and Bradford are doing well and training to be teachers, but teaching in an Asian school is the last thing they want to do. We must examine that matter because they would make excellent role models.

Estelle Morris: My hon. Friend has spoken privately and on the Floor of the House about that matter, which causes her great anxiety because she knows that the best hope for her constituents' children is a decent education. I do not mean to be insensitive or critical, but it is not helpful when children are removed from school for a long time. They need to be in school to learn. When they come back to school, it is difficult for them to catch up. As a former teacher, I know that it is almost impossible to teach a class and the children who return to school after absences of six to eight weeks or even longer. There must be a clear message about that. Many members of the Asian community join us in conveying the message to give the kids a chance and not to take them out of school unless they are ill.
	Mike Tomlinson said today that 80 per cent. of student absence is condoned by parents. That is not fair to the children. No matter how much we or teachers do, unless parents are true and active partners who get their children to school ready to learn, they will be left out. I suspect that the cycle will be repeated when they become adults and have children. We shall do whatever we can, but there is no easy solution. We must go on and on and convey that message.

Points of Order

Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to raise a delicate point of order of which I gave Mr. Speaker notice this morning. On 29 January, I went to the Table Office and tabled a question that was accepted. It asks:
	"what the practice is in regard to the provision of holidays and other benefits given to witnesses in murder trials by the police and the prosecuting authorities?"
	That was accepted by the Table Office for a named day, Friday 1 February. Normally, I give Departments 14 days notice for written questions, but this one was rather urgent. There was no reply on Friday, and on Monday there was neither a reply nor anything in Hansard. By some alchemy, however, on coming into the Chamber this afternoon, I received a reply—not from the Home Office but from the Lord Chancellor's Department—from the Solicitor-General. My question was very precise, and the Solicitor-General answered:
	"I have been asked to reply. There is no distinct provision for holidays or other benefits given to witnesses in murder trials by the police or prosecuting authorities. However, where the court necessarily lists a case for trisl"—
	incidentally, "trial" was mis-spelled "trisl". I do not want to make too much of that, but this answer was clearly hurriedly put together—
	"when a witness is due to be on holiday then some provision can be made to compensate the witness for any loss incurred by way of a financial loss allowance. Alternatively, arrangements can be made to return a witness from holiday to attend court."
	That did not answer the question that I asked, which was on a substantial matter about which I have a question to put to Mr. Speaker: what on earth is going on at the trial at Camp Zeist, in relation to Lockerbie? I am aware of the sub judice rules, but my question is not sub judice. It concerns something else. Mr. Speaker will know from his constituency Sunday press that there have been stories in Scotland for 10 days now asking why the Strathclyde police provided salmon fishing holidays and other treats for a witness in a forthcoming murder trial. The police have taken the key witness in the biggest murder trial in British history, namely Tony Gauchi, on salmon fishing expeditions. This is far from—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now widening his original point of order somewhat. Mr. Speaker has informed me that the hon. Gentleman advised him in advance of his question. I am in no position to comment on the substantive part of the answer to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I can say, however, that Standing Order No. 22(4) states:
	"Where a Member has indicated that a question is for written answer on a named day the Minister shall cause an answer to be given to the Member on the date for which notice has been given".
	When a Department is unable to give a substantive answer to a named day question on the date on which it is required, the House expects the Member to be given an answer that should give some indication of when the Minister expects to give a full reply.

Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Very briefly, and without intruding on the sub judice rule, may I ask Mr. Speaker to reflect on the fact that I have had 16 Adjournment debates on Lockerbie, but am now being told that that is all a matter for the Scottish Parliament? This is a very grey area. Are Members of the House of Commons not to be allowed to ask questions on subjects that they have been considering for many years? Where is the dividing line between the Members on the Mound and those in the House of Commons? I do not ask for an answer now, but I honestly think that the Speaker should reflect on this.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's comments have been heard, but I repeat that they go much wider than his original point of order.

Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I protest and ask for your support, and that of Mr. Speaker, for Members' interests? In the past couple of hours, a report, apparently from a Home Office official, has announced Government policy in relation to what might be called identity cards or entitlement cards. That is clearly a highly controversial and highly important matter. The Home Secretary was in the House yesterday, answering questions for an hour, and he stayed for an Opposition home affairs debate. We understand that he is to be in the House again on Thursday to introduce the asylum and immigration White Paper.
	Mr. Speaker and his colleagues have made it absolutely clear that matters of policy should be announced to this place and they certainly should be announced by Ministers. They certainly should not be announced by departmental spokespeople without, it appears, any press release or other information. Will you, Madam Deputy Speaker, make inquiries? If, as it appears, there has been no proper announcement, will you ensure that the relevant Ministers come here to make one so that Members on both sides of the House can find out what the policy is and ask appropriate questions?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am certainly not aware of the announcement to which the hon. Gentleman refers or, indeed, of how accurate it may or may not be, but he is quite right that Ministers are expected to come to the House to make statements on matters of policy.

Nick Gibb: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, about a matter of which I gave Mr. Speaker notice this morning. Yesterday, I received a two-line answer to my written question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking what will be his policy at ECOFIN on 12 February regarding Germany's budget deficit: the process is as set out in the treaty and the regulations regarding the operation of the stability and growth pact. That is it—a totally inadequate answer, particularly given The Sunday Times article at the weekend in which a senior Treasury official is quoted at length and the Government's approach to the stability pact and the German deficit is spelled out in great detail.
	Why are the Government able to answer the question when it is put by a journalist, David Smith, but unable to answer when it is put by a Member of Parliament? Can you use your position to request that the Treasury answer my question properly? If it is too busy to do so, could it not simply copy out The Sunday Times article?

Madam Deputy Speaker: On behalf of Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. As Mr. Speaker has frequently made clear to the House, the content of answers is a matter for Ministers. Mr. Speaker has no powers to direct Ministers as to how they answer questions. However, I understand that the Procedure Committee is conducting a wide-ranging inquiry into all aspects of parliamentary questions. The hon. Gentleman may want to pass his concerns to the Chairman, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).

Museums

Edward O'Hara: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to clarify the respective responsibilities of trustees and the Secretary of State in terms of international co-operation and the exchange of cultural objects between museums.
	The Bill is modest, but it would be enormously beneficial to those who want great cultural objects to be displayed to best purpose and best effect. It would clarify the responsibilities of museum trustees and the Secretary of State in terms of international co-operation and the exchange of cultural objects between museums. I take the situation of the trustees of the British museum regarding the Elgin marbles collection, which largely consists of sculptures hacked from the Parthenon in Athens.
	The Parthenon is a UNESCO world heritage site, and rightly so, for it has unique symbolic importance in the history of western civilisation. Most marbles in the Elgin collection are integral components of the structural and artistic unity of the building. The Parthenon and its sculptures can be fully appreciated only in conjunction. Without the sculptures, the Parthenon is incomplete. As Neil Kinnock once so memorably put it, without the marbles the Parthenon has a gap-toothed smile. Without the Parthenon the sculptures lack important context.
	A new Acropolis museum is to be built opposite the south slope of the Acropolis, in the one location in the world where the Parthenon and its sculptures can be viewed simultaneously, in a single visual experience. My Bill would allow the trustees, if they wished and if the Secretary of State agreed, to transfer the marbles to Athens to make that remarkable experience possible.
	It is not a question of ownership of the marbles. The manner in which Lord Elgin obtained them is disputable, and it would be possible to argue about it inconclusively and for ever, but the marbles belong neither to the British museum nor to the British Government, nor even to the Greek government. I can imagine Socrates, who described himself as not Athenian or Greek but universal, looking up at the Acropolis as he said that. In truth, in belonging to the Parthenon the marbles belong to the whole of humanity.
	The Parthenon cannot come to the marbles. They, therefore, should go back to the Parthenon. It is a potent argument. The arguments traditionally ranged against the return of the Parthenon marbles are now hackneyed and long since discredited. It is said that they were rescued by Lord Elgin. Okay, but rescue does not justify keeping them for ever. It is said that they have been in safe-keeping in the British museum. Does that include abrading the surfaces with carborundum, or holding buffet receptions in the Duveen gallery?
	It is said that the Greeks could not look after the marbles properly. That is an unsustainable slur on the professional expertise of the Greek Archaeological Service. It is said that more people see the marbles in the British museum than would see them in Athens. The figures cited refer to all visitors to the British museum, not all of whom visit the Duveen gallery. Hardly any of the millions of visitors to the Acropolis would miss the marbles if they were there.
	It is said that there is not a museum to put the marbles in. As I have said, the Greek Government have commissioned a grand new Acropolis museum with a glass-walled gallery, facing the Parthenon, reserved for the display of the marbles. I repeat that that is the only place on earth where the marbles and the Parthenon can be viewed together in a single visual experience.
	It is said that returning the marbles to Athens would open the floodgates, and lead to the emptying of the great museums of the world. That is a serious argument that must be addressed, but it is exaggerated. We are talking about integral components hacked off a great immovable monument. How many of those are there in the museums of the world? We should imagine the sculptures being hacked off the Arc de Triomphe, the chariots being taken from the Brandenburg gate, Nelson's statue being removed from its column in Trafalgar square, several pillars being removed from Stonehenge, or the torch being hacked off the Statue of Liberty. Come to think of it, the latter would probably result not in an Act of Congress—or the presentation of a museums Bill to Congress—but in a coalition against the evil of cultural vandalism.
	In fact there are not many such examples in the world's museums, and where there are, perhaps the case for their return should be carefully examined. The German Government provided a good example last year. Their museums contained several pieces of the Philippeion at Olympia. They have returned them, and are undertaking to reconstruct the building at their expense.
	It is said that the Elgin marbles are part of the encyclopaedic collection of the British museum. That is a serious argument: perhaps they are—but they are not indispensable to it. They are exemplars of Greek culture. The Greek Government would readily supply an even more comprehensive set of exemplars of Greek culture to replace the marbles. It is said that the marbles have been here for so long that they are now part of our heritage. That argument takes my breath away, and does not merit a response.
	Refuting those arguments one by one, however, is to no avail. The trustees of the British museum are forbidden by law to transfer the Parthenon marbles to Athens. So what? They do not want to anyway. The director made that clear in a recent article in The Times. But directors and trustees come and go, and in future a director and trustees may find the legal restriction irksome. My Bill would remove it. Then, at the very least, the trustees would not be in the unedifying position of hiding behind the hackneyed arguments I have just refuted, or falling back on the logical stopper of the law.
	I am not talking about ceding legal title to the ownership of the marbles. The argument has moved on from that: it is now about where they should be. There is strong and increasing support in the country and in Parliament for their being reunited with the Parthenon. A 1996 Channel 4 viewers poll by William J. Stewart, with a return of 100,000, showed a majority of 90 per cent. in favour. A 1998 MORI poll and a 1999 BBC internet poll returned majorities of eight to three. A 2000 poll of MPs by The Economist, to which 200 MPs responded, showed 66 per cent. overall and 84 per cent. of Labour Members to be in favour.
	The results of the parliamentary poll are consistent with successive early-day motions attracting more than 100 signatures. Early-day motion 336 has already attracted 107, to which we could add the names of Ministers, Whips and Parliamentary Private Secretaries who have registered their support in the past but are barred from doing so now.
	As I have said, my Bill is not about ceding ownership of cultural objects by the British museum or any other museum to which this might apply. Such objects could be sent on renewable loan, the lending museum sharing with the borrowing museum responsibility for their display, study and conservation. That is not a new idea; it accords with modern museum practice. In January 2000, the Museums and Galleries Commission published "Restitution and Repatriation: Guidelines for Good Practice". The guidelines were commended by the Government, by a House of Commons Select Committee and by the Museums Association. Any reasonable application of them would result in a return of the Parthenon marbles.
	Great museums in America, Europe and Australia have followed this practice. Even the British museum trustees, according to their submission to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport,
	"have in the past explored the possibility of reciprocal exchange of objects as long term renewable loans".
	They also told the Committee:
	"we could possibly examine the possibility of exchange loans"
	involving the Parthenon marbles. Robert Anderson himself said:
	"This has been brought up by the museum before. Where two countries have two halves of two individual objects there is the possibility of a long term loan between them. This does seem to me to be sensible."
	What is there for the British museum in such a change in legal practice? Plenty. The museum would gain enormous credit for its enlightened approach to the display of such important cultural objects. Furthermore, the Greek Government are committed to replacing the Parthenon marbles in the British museum with a rotating exhibition of treasures of Greek civilisation that would otherwise rarely be seen outside Greece.
	What is in it for Britain? Again, plenty. If the marbles are not returned, when the new Acropolis museum opens in 2004 the glass-walled gallery reserved for them will stand empty in living reproach to Britain in the eyes of millions of visitors to Athens from around the world. If they are returned, in the eyes of all those millions it will redound to Britain's credit that we have shown our commitment to the ideals of UNESCO by making whole again arguably the most powerful symbol of western civilisation, the Parthenon on the Acropolis in Athens. My Bill seeks to make that possible—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.

Tim Loughton: I oppose the Bill. I declare an interest as a member of the British Museum Society, and as one who has studied classics and archaeology.
	The hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) made a good case, and I agree with some of what he said. Certainly the marbles belong to the whole of humanity, not just to any one nation. He would be expected to make a good case, as chairman of the all-party parliamentary Greece group. He was also honest enough to come clean about the fact that this is really all about the Elgin marbles. His Bill may be a Trojan horse—an appropriate phrase in this context—but that is what it is about. It should really be subtitled "Give Greece the Elgin marbles to show that we are good Europeans".
	The hon. Gentleman said that his proposals were modest, but they are not. The implications for the future of all world museums housing universal collections are enormous. I oppose this latest attempt at iconoclastic decontextualisation and will judge it on the following grounds. Are the Elgin marbles rightfully in the British museum, are they in the best place to be appreciated most by the widest audience, and what are the real motives for destroying the status quo?
	On the first charge, that the Elgin marbles are not legitimately in the British museum, even Greece no longer challenges the legal ownership of the marbles. In 1815, Parliament bought the marbles by paying part of Lord Elgin's costs. In 1816, a Select Committee said that they had been rightfully acquired. That judgment has been confirmed by a Select Committee report in 1999, by the former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), and by the former Minister for the Arts, the right hon. Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth), who is here today and who ratifies the judgment in his excellent article in The Guardian today.
	I come to the defence of the much maligned Lord Elgin. The marbles were not housed in a private collection but given to the British museum in 1816. They became an integral part of the British museum's heritage and are intrinsic to its identity. It was Lord Elgin who saved the Parthenon marbles: without him, they would not exist. They were legally taken under a firman. Placing the marbles in the British museum led to an appreciation of the high classical style in the early 19th century, which had been overlooked in preference to the hellenistic style of sculpture. There is also a case for saying that bringing the marbles to the British museum encouraged an awareness of hellenism and the foundation of the Greek state in 1833, a far cry from the city state of Athens in classical times.
	Would it not be odd if after almost 200 years of the Parthenon marbles being in the British museum, and as the British museum prepares to celebrate its 250th anniversary next year, an integral part of its heritage were ripped from its walls? There is no case for saying that they are not rightfully part of the British museum. The hon. Member for Knowsley, South would be better off looking at the urgent matter of clamping down on the illegal trade in artefacts between private collections, which often goes on unprovenanced and unrecorded.
	The second charge is that the British museum is not the best place for displaying the Elgin marbles. The British museum holds no place for nationalism. It is a universal museum. The idea of a universal museum is the outcome of the 18th-century age of enlightenment. It is a national museum in the great tradition of the Louvre, the Metropolitan museum of art in New York and the Berlin national museum. The British museum regards it as a privilege to display some of the finest artworks known to man, and has a responsibility to promote public understanding of them through exhibitions, publications, educational programmes and, in the case of the Elgin marbles, video displays with computer graphics.
	The British museum is a world museum. Forces for educational and cultural enlightenment across the globe exist there. It has 6 million visitors a year. Academics, students, school children, Greeks, Britons, South Africans, Koreans all visit for free. They are able to see the Elgin marbles not just as a single artistic treasure but in the context of the great developing panoply of archaic and classical art and architecture.
	In the British museum, visitors can trace artistic development through Sumerian gudea figures, Mesopotamian site artefacts, Assyrian reliefs from Nineveh and Nimrud, Egyptian kouroi, early classical statuary and high classical, hellenistic, Roman and renaissance artefacts; the British museum itself is built in a neoclassical style. They are all under one roof, all for free and all properly explained, displayed and set in context.
	Decontextualisation would be a disaster and would open a Pandora's box, whatever the hon. Member for Knowsley, South says. Mesopotamian finds dug up because of the tenacity of British archaeologists in the 1900s and previously would be returned to Iraq and Iran, perhaps never to be seen again. The Benin bronzes would go to Nigeria, despite the fact that the British museum helped to build the collection of bronzes in Nigeria itself and has done an awful lot to promote the heritage and history of west Africa. When Nelson Mandela visited the British museum just 13 months ago on the opening of three new African galleries, he praised the British museum as
	"this truly international institution for enriching and cross-fertilising the world's institutions."
	The wish is to send the Elgin marbles to a special museum set apart from the Parthenon—a museum that has not even yet been started and has been promised for years. They are not to go on the Parthenon itself. One of the finest metopes on the west end of the Parthenon has been sitting there for centuries in one of the most polluted cities in Europe; it has not been rescued and taken down. Fourteen blocks of the west frieze were removed in 1993 and have not seen the light of day again. The Acropolis receives fewer than 2.5 million paying visitors, less than half the number of visitors who go to the British museum, most of whom go to see the Elgin marbles in particular.
	In the fifth century, Pericles and the fleet of artists under Phidias built the splendour of classical Athens not just as an impressive environment for local Athenians but as a symbol to the world of how quickly civilisation had developed under Athens' artistic and military prowess: it was the top nation of the day. No one would be more impressed by the longevity of that legacy in the British museum two and a half millennia later than Pericles himself.
	What are the real motives? It is all political. Academically, there is no case to return the Elgin marbles and other works of art to Athens. They are in the ownership of the British museum but they belong to the history of world civilisation. To treat them as some political trophy that can be traded for short-term political advantage is the worst reason for ripping them out of the heart of one of the world's great museums.
	The British museum should not be treated as some state Aladdin's cave to buy power and influence at random. To do so would be to return to the classical times mentality of warring fiefdoms whence the Elgin marbles came, and would be deeply patronising to the modern democracy that is Greece.
	No doubt the Greeks would view us as better Europeans if we made a gesture of handing them the Elgin marbles after 200 years, just as the Government want to make the Spanish view us as better Europeans by handing over Gibraltar after almost 300 years, yet it does not make our equal partners, Greece and Spain, better Europeans by pressing for such moves and expecting us to comply under duress and for all the wrong reasons.
	The intentions behind the Bill are clear but the motives are entirely wrong and the implications for the academic world would be catastrophic. The hon. Member for Knowsley, South made his case with some passion, not as much as the late Melina Mercouri and certainly with fewer tears, but just as we echoed her sentiments to her in "Never on a Sunday", so I ask the House to say to the hon. Gentleman, "Never on a Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday or Monday for that matter."
	Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
	The House proceeded to a Division; but no Member being willing to act as Teller, Mr. Deputy Speaker declared that the Ayes had it.
	Question agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Edward O'Hara, Mr. Tom Cox, Mr. Andrew Dismore, Mrs. Jackie Lawrence, Andy Burnham, Mr. Richard Allan and Mr. Kevin McNamara.

Museums

Mr. Edward O'Hara accordingly presented a Bill to clarify the respective responsibilities of trustees and the Secretary of State in terms of international co-operation and the exchange of cultural objects between museums: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 12 April, and to be printed [Bill 92].

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Education Bill
	 — 
	[1st Allotted Day]

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
	Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That the Education Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, new Clauses relating to Part 1, new Clauses relating to Part 2, new Clauses relating to Part 3, new Clauses relating to Part 4, new Clauses relating to Part 5, new Clauses relating to Part 6, new Clauses relating to Part 7, new Clauses relating to Part 8, new Clauses relating to Part 9, new Clauses relating to Part 10, other new Clauses, amendments relating to Clauses 1 to 18, Schedule 1, Clauses 19 to 35, Schedule 2, Clauses 36 to 38, Schedule 3, Clauses 39 to 48, Schedule 4, Clauses 49 to 53, Schedule 5, Clauses 54 to 56, Schedule 6, Clauses 57 to 62, Schedule 7, Clauses 63 to 66, Schedule 8, Clauses 67 and 68, Schedule 9, Clauses 69 to 71, Schedule 10, Clauses 72 to 115, Schedule 11, Clauses 116 to 143, Schedule 12, Clauses 144 to 147, Schedule 13, Clauses 148 to 150, Schedule 14, Clauses 151 to 180, Schedule 15, Clause 181, Schedule 16, Clause 182, Schedule 17, Clauses 183 to 188, Schedule 18, Clauses 189 to 192, Schedule 19, Clauses 193 to 198, Schedule 20, Clauses 199 to 209, Schedules 21 and 22, new Schedules.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have accepted the manuscript amendment for debate.

Stephen Timms: I beg to move a manuscript amendment:
	That the order of consideration be amended as follows: leave out the words
	"new Clauses relating to Part 3"
	and insert in their place
	"new Clause 1, new Clause 2, new Clause 18, new Clause 3, new Clause 4, new Clause 7, new Clause 8, new Clause 9 and new Clause 12."

Phil Willis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have certainly not been informed about the change of business or the manuscript amendment and we have been sitting here quite calmly for a considerable time waiting to debate the Education Bill, half of which was not discussed in Committee. Therefore, I respectfully ask whether it is in order for the Minister to propose a new timetable without allowing us to consider it.

Michael Fallon: Will you make it clear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether we are now debating the amendment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are debating the manuscript amendment that I have just put to the House.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I have the greatest respect for my hon. Friend the Minister, but I am slightly startled by this change of procedure. Is it common for the Chair to accept a manuscript amendment when there is a clear statement on the Order Paper of the order in which the Bill is to be debated? If that is the case, may I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when you received notice of that manuscript amendment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady is now opening up the debate. I accepted the manuscript amendment simply for the convenience of the House, because it appeared sensible, and it has now been moved. Hon. Members are entitled to speak to the amendment and to vote against it.

Stephen Timms: I wish simply to explain the reasoning behind the amendment and I to apologise to hon. Members. The amendment resulted from recent hasty discussions. The difficulty is that, under the motion on the Order Paper, we would need to delay votes on a number of matters that we shall discuss this afternoon until the end of all the debates on part 3. The amendment would allow us to vote at the conclusion of the debates on those amendments rather than all together at the end of the discussion of part 3. It is a helpful proposal and I hope that the House will accept it.

Graham Brady: All hon. Members are bemused by this new development. Many of us have been in the Chamber for quite some time, following the statement from the Department for Education and Skills. We have read the timetable motion on the Order Paper and feel that we have a right to expect it to be followed.
	Surely it is bizarre for the Minister to give us no notice of the manuscript amendment and to make no attempt to circulate it. Surely it is outrageous for him to bring it before the House in this way. Opposition Members can only protest in the strongest possible way that the Minister has not even attempted to give hon. Members notice. Surely the fact that Ministers and Labour Back Benchers seem unable to organise their business in a rational and coherent way does not make it acceptable for us to be faced with absurd changes to procedure without notice or adequate explanation. I really do protest and I wonder whether any steps could be taken now to allow the House an opportunity to see the amendment before we vote on it.

Alan Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At this stage of the debate when we have a little more time, it would be helpful if copies of the manuscript amendment could be circulated while we are in the Chamber. In my experience, most manuscript amendments are brief and can easily be understood when they are read out. They usually involve the substitution of one name or something similar. This is the most complicated manuscript amendment I have ever heard in 28 years in the House. Is it beyond the wit of the Government to circulate some photocopies of it while the debate continues?

David Heath: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would also be helpful if you would explain whether the amended order of consideration would have any effect on Mr. Speaker's selection of amendments as already circulated and the order in which they are to be considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If we are not careful, hon. Members will be making debating points on points of order. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's latter point is no, it does not.

Phil Willis: I am quite outraged that we find ourselves in this situation. The Bill was handled disgracefully in Committee and we were looking forward to two days of debate to address some of its core issues. Members of the public are particularly interested in some of the key aspects of the debate that was expected today.
	Earlier today, I asked the Committee Clerk about the order in which the amendments were to be debated and voted on. I was assured that there would be a vote on each group of amendments. I even informed the Clerk that that was our intention this evening. Now, at the last minute, having sat here for the past three and a half hours, we find ourselves having to respond to a manuscript amendment without having sight of it. We are now told that all of a sudden the way in which we debate the amendments and vote on them has changed. If the Government are prepared to show such contempt for the House when it is considering legislation that engages us in a good debate, heaven help us when we consider provisions that are far more tricky politically.
	We hope that the explanation for the manuscript amendment and this change of heart will allow us to understand the Government's thinking, and will reassure us that we can debate the current marshalled list of amendments in the existing order and vote on each string of amendments, depending on whether the Opposition wish to press them to vote.

Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I draw your attention to page 473 of "Erskine May". Even though the Secretary of State and the Minister of State were present this afternoon for an education statement, at no time did the Government tell the Opposition about their intention to table this manuscript amendment. Given the total and utter contempt for the proceedings of the House that we have witnessed this afternoon, I ask you to consider carefully the passage in "Erskine May" that states:
	"Whenever possible, notice should be given of any amendments. However, in committee it is in order to move, as manuscript amendments, amendments of which notice has not been given."
	That clearly states that, in all practical circumstances, notice should be given. An education statement was made and the Secretary of State was present, but no attempt was made to notify the House of the Government's intention, so I ask you whether it is right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we should accept this manuscript amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already accepted the manuscript amendment and we are now debating it. This is not a matter of the content of the amendment; it was simply that I understood it to be for the convenience of the House to consider the matter in this way.

Michael Fallon: I make it clear that I am not raising a point of order but speaking to the debate. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who spoke very strongly, has every reason to feel aggrieved by the way in which he and new clause 5 have been treated by this procedure. Given that it is now some 10 minutes since the manuscript amendment was moved, I should have expected the Minister at least to have had the courtesy to circulate copies of it or place them in the Vote Office. I wonder whether that can still be done, even at this late stage. It is extraordinary that a manuscript amendment of this nature has been moved without giving any notice to the House, and with no discussion between Front Benchers, let alone with those who have tabled new clauses and amendments. The Minister will find it hard to justify that extraordinary procedure.
	What lies behind this procedure is an attempt by the Government to rig the way in which Divisions are held. The Minister needs reminding that the purpose of our presence here today is not to arrange the timing of Divisions but to consider legislation—

John Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to my hon. Friend for interrupting him, but I want to appeal to you as the protector of Back Benchers. It is hard enough being a Back Bencher under this Government. I for one would like more time to consider this matter, so I beg to move that the House be adjourned for one hour, so that we can study it further.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, I am not prepared to accept a motion for the Adjournment of the House at this time. We are dealing with the amendment and the debate must continue.

Paul Tyler: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have just checked with the Vote Office and there still is not available to us any version of this extraordinary amendment, which has been thrust upon the House. Can you please instruct that copies of it be circulated to Members? It is intolerable that our proceedings should be so extraordinarily diverted at this stage, without us knowing what we are being asked to do.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister and his colleagues on the Treasury Bench will have heard what has been said about copies being made available. Before we continue, perhaps it would help if I again read out the manuscript amendment, which states that the order of consideration be amended to leave out the words
	"new Clauses relating to part 3"
	and insert
	"new Clause 1, new Clause 2, new Clause 18, new Clause 3, new Clause 4, new Clause 7, new Clause 8, new Clause 9 and new Clause 12."

Michael Fallon: The very fact that you have had to read out the amendment a second time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, justifies the Government's doing us the elementary courtesy of getting this thing printed so that we can all see exactly where we stand.
	Just before I was interrupted, I was saying that the Minister appears to be rigging the order in which Divisions are likely to be held. That is monstrous. We are a legislature. We are here today to debate these new clauses and amendments in the final stages of this important Bill. We are not here simply to arrange Divisions for the convenience of the Executive. As I understand it, the order of consideration for the new clauses and amendments was laid down clearly by Mr. Speaker before lunchtime today, it was published and it has been available in the Vote Office since 3 o'clock. It is quite extraordinary to be told at this late stage—some six hours after Mr. Speaker made his selection and ruling—that the order of debate will be changed. That change is not for the convenience of the House, but for the convenience of the Government, and I urge my hon. Friends to consider pressing the matter to a Division.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Decisions taken by the Chair are for the protection of Members of Parliament and the Orders of the Day are published so that Members of Parliament can have at least a vague idea about what they are debating—something that is not always true even when they have read what they are debating. Frankly, they can have no idea of what they are debating if what is printed on the Order Paper differs from what is proposed.
	I had no intention of taking part in the debate, but the order of debate should be clear and transparent to Members, so that they know in advance when the group of amendments that they want to discuss will be debated. That is not exactly a revolutionary idea, but it commends itself to me. Because we are so dependent on the Chair for the protection of our rights, and because it is so vital that we are clear about how we conduct our business, I hope that a much more detailed explanation of the manuscript amendment will be given, even if we end up accepting the Minister's proposal. I have rarely seen such a matter handled with less finesse, and this procedure has not been particularly helpful.

Damian Green: The House will wish to consider two separate issues at this point, the first of which is the issue of process. Like the hon. Lady, I have never seen anything handled in the House with less finesse. There are two possible reasons why the Government are behaving in this way: either the Department has been monumentally incompetent, or the Government are trying to rig the procedures of the House, not for the House's convenience but for their own. I incline toward the latter explanation, because I cannot believe that Ministers and their officials could be so incompetent. The entire ministerial team were in the House for an hour and a half for a long statement, so it would surely not have been beyond their wit to hand copies of the manuscript amendment to the Opposition parties, and to show the same courtesy to their own right hon. and hon. Friends, who are intimately involved with the debates that the Government are trying to rig. I therefore absolve Ministers of the charge of monumental incompetence, but they cannot be absolved of the charge of reaching a nadir—even by the standards of this Government—in abuse of the procedures of the House.
	The second point worth considering has to do with the substance of the manuscript amendment, with which we have not yet dealt. It is clear that the Government are trying to minimise the number of Divisions that can take place on the matter of faith schools.
	I can approach that matter fairly dispassionately, as I support what the Government are trying to achieve with the faith schools amendment. However, they must recognise that there exist other points of view in the House, and that they are legitimate. The various new clauses tabled on faith schools represent varying nuances of view. The Opposition oppose those views, as do the Government, so this is not a partisan matter between Opposition and Government Front-Bench Members.
	The question of faith schools engages the House in a non-party way, and it also engages the British people. It is an abuse of power by the Government to seek to minimise hon. Members' capacity to vote fully, clearly and competently on such a matter.
	I think that the Minister is at heart a decent man. I can only urge him to withdraw this wretched amendment before we have to vote against it.

Jon Owen Jones: Will my hon. Friend the Minister explain to the House—or at least to Labour Members—whether the manuscript amendment is linked in any way to the numerous calls that I and other hon. Members received at the weekend? The Government are clearly somewhat sensitive about how we might wish to vote on the matter of faith schools. Will he make clear what effect the manuscript amendment will have on the votes on new clauses 1 and 18 in particular? The explanation that he has given so far has not assuaged my suspicion about the Government's motives.

Gordon Prentice: I underline that point. I am sure that the Government's motives are not malign, but I am just a simple Back Bencher. When the Minister responds to the debate, will he say what effect the amendment will have on when we vote on the clauses relating to faith schools? What are the implications for the timetable of votes?

Julian Brazier: I have been in this House for 14 and a half years, and I cannot remember ever finding myself in this position before in connection with a subject of such considerable interest to the outside world. Suddenly, the House, having been given no notice at all, is debating a manuscript amendment—

Lorna Fitzsimons: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to allow hon. Members to speak in this debate who were not even in the Chamber when the manuscript amendment was moved?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady must leave these matters to the Chair.

Julian Brazier: I have one question for the Minister. If the Government are determined to curb hon. Members' right to put their points of view on this extremely controversial issue—on which I have spoken a number of times in the past, and about which the Minister knows that I share his views—where will it all stop? Has the House of Commons become nothing more than an extension of the Labour party's internal battles?

Alan Beith: I am not a cynic by nature, and it is just conceivable that the Minister might be trying to help the House. If so, however, I wish he would wear a sign on his forehead saying "I am trying to be helpful", or something similar. The process that he has taken us through could hardly have been more unhelpful. It has left suspicion in everyone's mind.
	The manuscript amendment that the Minister has moved cannot be understood or construed without the most careful examination of the motion that appears on the Order Paper. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, read the amendment out most clearly, but at a speed that could not be called dictation speed for people who cannot take shorthand. We were fairly lost until—eventually, and after much pressure—we obtained a photocopy of the amendment.
	We now have to decide whether it means what some of us think that it means. I sought advice, from which I glean—I think—that the amendment would allow new clause 18 to be voted on after we have voted on new clauses 1 and 2. The Minister did not trouble to mention that point in specific terms in his opening remarks. If the amendment was intended to be helpful, it still defeats me why some minimal notice of it was not given, or why some fuller and more intelligent explanation was not given at the start of the debate.
	One of my reasons for speaking now is to give the Minister an opportunity to give us an intelligible explanation, and to remind him that there are better ways to do something like this

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Minister replies, I shall repeat that it was my belief, in accepting the manuscript amendment, that it would be helpful and for the convenience of the House. When the Minister responds, I hope that he will explain clearly why it is to the benefit of the House to deal with the matter in this way, and that he will convince the House of the need for the amendment.

Roger Gale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As we all know, it is the burden and task of the person in the Chair to defend the interests of Back-Bench Members. I am a member of the Chairman's Panel, and I know that you, more than most in this House, will always seek to do that.
	It is clear, from what I have heard of this short debate, that ample opportunity existed earlier this afternoon for the matter to have been discussed through the usual channels. That does not seem to have happened. Hon. Members have tabled amendments—with which I profoundly disagree—and they surely have a right to be consulted.
	Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, consider suspending this sitting of the House for ten minutes to allow hon. Members—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That point has been put to me already, and I have said that I will not do that.

Damian Green: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the very helpful point that you made immediately before calling the Minister to respond, you invited him to convince you that the manuscript amendment was in the interests of the House rather than of the Government. When you have heard the Minister's speech, will it be in your power to withdraw your acceptance of the manuscript amendment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I invited the Minister to convince the House, not me.

Paul Tyler: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May we invite the Minister to say whether he would welcome a short adjournment of a few minutes, not an hour—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not for the Minister to decide on such matters. It is for the Chair, and the Chair has decided.

Stephen Timms: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who correctly drew the House's attention to the fact that my intention is to be helpful. I emphasise that the amendment will not affect the order of consideration of the groups of amendments before the House, and neither will it affect the content of the debate in any way. What it will do, however—

Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Stephen Timms: Not just yet. The amendment will allow us to take, one after the other, votes on all the new clauses in the second group of amendments relating to faith schools. The original procedure would have allowed votes to be taken only when we had completed debating all the matters in part 3. It would help the House to be able to take those votes together, instead of after what may have been a lengthy period of debate of other matters in between.

Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Timms: No. That is the intention behind the amendment, and I hope that the House—

Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Timms: I want to finish this point. [Hon. Members: "Give way."] That is the intention behind the amendment, and I hope that the House will agree that its effect is indeed helpful.

Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Timms: I will now give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. When did he decide to make this change? When did he write out the manuscript amendment, and why did he not have the decency to tell the Opposition?

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman puts a fair question. An error in the drafting of the amendment came to our attention very late in our proceedings. I regret that, and I expressed my regret a few minutes before I rose to move the manuscript amendment. I hope that, after the explanation that I have provided, the hon. Gentleman accepts that it will be helpful for the House to vote on all those matters together, rather than having a long gap between votes on matters that will have been debated together.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 315, Noes 178.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Main Question, as amended, put:—
	The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to check whether the Division bells are functioning properly.

The House having divided: Ayes 312, Noes 169.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That the Education Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, new Clauses relating to Part 1, new Clauses relating to Part 2, new Clause 1, new Clause 2, new Clause 18, new Clause 3, new Clause 4, new Clause 7, new Clause 8, new Clause 9, new Clause 12, new Clauses relating to Part 4, new Clauses relating to Part 5, new Clauses relating to Part 6, new Clauses relating to Part 7, new Clauses relating to Part 8, new Clauses relating to Part 9, new Clauses relating to Part 10, other new Clauses, amendments relating to Clauses 1 to 18, Schedule 1, Clauses 19 to 35, Schedule 2, Clauses 36 to 38, Schedule 3, Clauses 39 to 48, Schedule 4, Clauses 49 to 53, Schedule 5, Clauses 54 to 56, Schedule 6, Clauses 57 to 62, Schedule 7, Clauses 63 to 66, Schedule 8, Clauses 67 and 68, Schedule 9, Clauses 69 to 71, Schedule 10, Clauses 72 to 115, Schedule 11, Clauses 116 to 143, Schedule 12, Clauses 144 to 147, Schedule 13, Clauses 148 to 150, Schedule 14, Clauses 151 to 180, Schedule 15, Clause 181, Schedule 16, Clause 182, Schedule 17, Clauses 183 to 188, Schedule 18, Clauses 189 to 192, Schedule 19, Clauses 193 to 198, Schedule 20, Clauses 199 to 209, Schedules 21 and 22, new Schedules.

New Clause 5
	 — 
	Power of LEA to innovate without permission of the Secretary of State

'(1) This section has effect notwithstanding anything in sections 1 to 4 of this Act.
	(2) A local education authority may resolve to implement an innovative project which in the opinion of the authority contributes to the raising of educational standards achieved by children or adults in their area.
	(3) Subject to subsection (4), the authority may resolve to exempt, relax or modify any innovative project from any requirement imposed by education legislation on the authority.
	(4) The Secretary of State shall by order designate any requirement imposed by education legislation on a local education authority as not subject to exemption, relaxation or modification by the authority.'.—[Mr. Willis.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Phil Willis: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 6—Power of school to innovate without permission of the Secretary of State (No. 2)—
	'(1) This section has effect notwithstanding anything in sections 1 to 4 of this Act.
	(2) A maintained school governing body may resolve to implement an innovative project which in the opinion of the governing body contributes to the raising of educational standards achieved by registered pupils at the school.
	(3) Subject to subsection (4), the governing body may resolve to exempt, relax or modify any innovative project from any requirement imposed by education legislation on the governing body.
	(4) The Secretary of State shall by order designate any requirement imposed by education legislation on a school governing body as not subject to exemption, relaxation or modification by the governing body.'.
	New clause 10—Automatic exemptions from curriculum and pay and conditions provisions—
	'(1) Regulations shall designate curriculum or pay and conditions provisions as attracting exemptions for all maintained schools, subject to subsection (2) below.
	(2) Regulations may prescribe circumstances in which a school or category of schools will not benefit from automatic exemption under subsection (1), in which case section 6 shall apply.'.
	Amendment No. 79, in clause 2, page 2, line 28, at end insert—
	'except section 317 of the Education Act 1996 (duties of governing body or LEA in relation to pupils with special educational needs).'.
	Amendment No. 64, in clause 6, page 4, line 34, at beginning insert—
	'Subject to the provisions of subsection (3A)'.
	Amendment No. 67, in page 5, line 9, at end insert—
	'(e) make further provision for the pay and conditions of persons employed to work at the school to be settled by agreement between or in a manner agreed between teachers and local education authorities or teachers and governing bodies and to be given effect in such manner as may be prescribed.'.
	Amendment No. 65, in page 5, line 10, at beginning insert—
	'Subject to the provisions of subsection (3A)'.
	Amendment No. 66, in page 5, line 19, at end insert—
	'(3A) No order may be made under subsection (2) nor may any provision be made in such an order unless the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales as the case may be is satisfied that such order or provision may be made without detriment to the education at the school of pupils having special educational needs.'.
	Amendment No. 68, in page 5, line 30, at end insert—
	'(6) In so far as regulations made under this section relate to a curriculum provision they shall, in addition to providing for an exemption or modification, require persons responsible for the delivery of the curriculum in any school to have regard to the need to maintain a balanced and broadly based curriculum.'.
	Amendment No. 130, in page 5, line 30, at end insert—
	'(6) No regulations under subsection (1) shall limit or reduce the provision of Special Education Needs in any qualifying school.'.
	Amendment No. 131, in clause 7, page 5, line 37, at end insert—
	'and, in particular, parents of pupils with Special Education Needs.'.

Phil Willis: I am delighted to be able to begin this debate at last. I hope that the next day and a half will be as interesting and as entertaining as the last hour.
	I want to concentrate on the two new clauses that my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) and I have tabled, both of which deal with autonomy. One of the great features of the Bill as it was presented to the House on Second Reading—and one of its great features that was presented in Committee—was that it would encourage schools to innovate and that it would encourage a plethora of approaches to raising standards. Schools would be able to present new ideas and thoughts.
	New clause 5 deals with the right of local education authorities to be able to present new ideas, innovate and initiate, whereas, during the passage of the Bill, the Government envisaged that local authorities would be passive—they would carry out the wishes of the Government or facilitate the wishes of schools. For some reason, the Government rejected the idea that local authorities should be able to innovate.
	Earlier today, the Secretary of State made one of the longest statements ever heard by the House, and we now know why. She did not respond to a question that I asked her about local authorities. The way in which schools are being turned round, in terms of coming out of special measures, is largely due to the brilliant work being done in the vast majority of local authorities. Although the Ofsted report clearly states that a number of local authorities are failing to meet the required standards, a significant number are doing so. If new clause 5 were added to the Bill, local authorities would have exactly the same powers but they would not have to ask the Secretary of State for them, provided that they do not show serious signs of weakness in their inspection process, whether it is carried out by Ofsted or the Audit Commission.

Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman has tabled a couple of interesting new clauses, which are certainly worthy of due consideration. In relation to the point that he has just made about weaker authorities, new clause 5 does not contain a provision to allow Ofsted or the Secretary of State to identify and remove the right to innovate from an underperforming authority. Will he tell us how that might be done?

Phil Willis: As usual, the hon. Gentleman has applied his diagnostic brain to the new clause. Let me reassure him. Subsection (4) states:
	"The Secretary of State shall by order designate any requirement imposed by education legislation on a local education authority as not subject to exemption, relaxation or modification by the authority."
	That includes advice given by Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools and the Audit Commission. The new clause has been carefully drafted by expert draftsmen to ensure that the Secretary of State has that backstop.

Chris Grayling: I interpreted that phraseology as relating to individual areas of regulation rather than to a wholesale power of the Secretary of State to remove from an LEA the right to innovate because it is underperforming. That is what I am trying to clarify.

Phil Willis: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave before—[Interruption.] Hon. Members make a telling point, and I accept the compliment—if it was one.
	The Minister will tell us whether the new clause will achieve the objective that I desire.

Michael Fallon: The problem with the drafting, which the hon. Gentleman calls "expert", is that subsection (4) gives a power to the Secretary of State that is mandatory, not discretionary. Subsections (2) and (3) say that local authorities "may" do this or that, but in every circumstance the Secretary of State has to do it because it says "shall". Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will want to reflect on that with his experts, unless he can explain it more fully.

Phil Willis: The hon. Gentleman has great knowledge of such matters as a former Minister in a former Government, now gone. I reassure him that I did not use the same draftsmen as the Government used to draft their manuscript amendment. However, I take his point. Subsection (4) tries to give the Secretary of State a backstop if she believes that there are reasons why a local authority should not be given powers to innovate. I am sure that hon. Members will regard that as a reasonable way to proceed rather than giving local authorities unlimited powers, irrespective of whether they are performing well.

Michael Fallon: The problem is that subsection (4) does not give the Secretary of State a power to be exercised under certain circumstances when she feels like it. Instead, it makes it mandatory that she shall in every circumstance designate any of the requirements. There is no choice about whether to do that.

Phil Willis: The hon. Gentleman is assiduous in wanting his points clarified. We want the Secretary of State to make proper provision to ensure that local authorities in special measures and those that are a cause for concern do not get the power to innovate. For that to happen, the Secretary of State has to have the powers and must use them. That is the purpose behind new clause 5.
	New clause 6 is important and I intend to divide the House on it. It goes to the heart of the Bill. The Government claim that they want to move away from appearing to have total central control of everything that schools do, but the Bill does just that. It takes unto the Secretary of State powers that did not exist before. A school cannot innovate or receive earned autonomy unless the Secretary of State agrees to it. That is the most preposterous level of centralisation ever.
	I concede that, in the past, schools perhaps had too much autonomy to do what they liked. That regime went with the introduction of the Education Reform Act 1988, Ofsted and the rigorous inspection of our schools. Mike Tomlinson's report contains evidence that schools have adjusted to those regimes. They now regard inspection and audit as an essential tool within the school improvement process. Schools see the new tenor of inspections, especially the light touch inspections, that Mike Tomlinson has introduced as part of the process rather than something to be dreaded at the end of four or six years.
	We have put in place a national curriculum and developed a clear sense of audit and inspection, and schools now operate within that climate. New clause 6 is simple: unless a school is in special measures or showing serious signs for concern, it should automatically be given the right to innovate. It should not have to go cap in hand to the Secretary of State and say, "This is what we'd like to do. Please can we have permission to do it?"

Andrew Turner: I applaud the hon. Gentleman's objectives, and it surprises me that he has been hostile to innovative projects introduced by previous Governments. Would new clause 6 allow a school that promotes the raising of educational standards to charge for admissions, to decide not to admit pupils with brown eyes or curly hair, or to extend the school day without the agreement of the teaching staff? It seems that the new clause could achieve that.

Phil Willis: I trust that the hon. Gentleman is not going to spend the next day and a half engaged in a hostile debate. I am trying to be helpful. I thought that with his vast consultancy experience in such matters he would applaud the measure. He is far too intelligent not to accept that the Secretary of State has to lay down the parameters within which innovation and autonomy can be exercised. We do not have a problem with that. Indeed, we have co-operated well on that aspect of the Bill. Having set down those parameters, however, schools should not have to go back to the Secretary of State every time they want to instigate an innovation within those broad parameters.

Andrew Lansley: I am following carefully what the hon. Gentleman says. Is it to be inferred that one of the benefits of new clause 6 is the absence of a bureaucratic process of informing the Secretary of State about an innovative project that a governing body of a school might undertake? If that is the case, how does the hon. Gentleman expect the Secretary of State to know whether or not it would appropriate to invoke new clause 6(4) and seek to restrict the ability of a governing body to undertake that kind of project?

Phil Willis: First, I have made it clear that, under the new clause, I hope the Secretary of State will lay down the condition that schools that show serious weakness, require special measures or are under-achieving in the eyes of Ofsted, are not entitled to apply for earned autonomy or the power to innovate. That is one safeguard. Secondly, under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, local authorities were rightly given a duty to raise standards in their schools. The relationship that local authorities now have with their schools is largely positive; they engage in positive dialogue. That is another safeguard. It is also recognised that governing bodies have a duty because they carry most of the legal powers in a school. If they are to ensure that their ideas for innovation and powers of autonomy are realised, they have got to act reasonably.
	We cannot have it both ways. If we argue that schools should be given powers to innovate, if we want a diverse and exciting secondary education system and if we want a plethora of different arrangements in the 14 to 19-year-old sector, we must free schools to get on with the job. That is an exciting concept, and to realise it, we should not confine schools to having to go cap in hand to the Secretary of State.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again; I do not want to detain him while he is developing his argument. However, new clause 6(4) gives rise to a problem that is similar to the one in new clause 5(4), as it does not seem to allow for the possibility for which the hon. Gentleman argued. He said that there are authorities or qualifying bodies generally, as well as school governing bodies, that may not meet Ofsted requirements. However, the purpose of subsection (4) is not explicitly to allow the Secretary of State to exempt certain qualifying bodies from the power to undertake innovative projects. Its purpose is, by order, to designate certain requirements under education legislation which, by extension, would apply to all qualifying bodies. If the hon. Gentleman wanted to give the Secretary of State the freedom to choose certain schools that were counted as failing schools, why did he not write that into the new clause?

Phil Willis: The hon. Gentleman will accept that I do not want to put anything unnecessary into the Bill. Sadly, an awful lot of things that should have been included in it will be introduced in secondary legislation.
	New clause 6(4) is clear. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not appreciate the fact that it is a catch-all for the Secretary of State, who can lay down regulations under which all schools can innovate. I am arguing strongly that, if we want the innovation in schools that most hon. Members want, we must free schools to achieve it. The Secretary of State says that she wants to trust schools, and the chief inspector says in his new Ofsted report that we have better school management than ever before, so we cannot simply say, "Ah, but we just do not trust you enough." We must address that issue.

David Chaytor: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the key to the new clause is the definition of innovation? As drafted, the new clause hands considerable powers to the Secretary of State to define innovation. Does he envisage that under his new clause admissions policy is an area in which a school can innovate?

Phil Willis: The hon. Gentleman knows my views on admissions policy, which is key to having an education system that all youngsters can access as a level playing field. One of my great criticisms of current admissions policies—I am being dragged into another part of the Bill—is that there is a plethora of different arrangements, which tier admissions and result in children being creamed off. I do not favour that, but we should have a genuine debate with the Secretary of State about the parameters of innovation. As for individual schools, the new clause tries to ensure that a school does not have to go cap in hand to the Secretary of State every time that it wants to innovate. We want to set down guidelines within which schools can automatically innovate, provided that, for example, they are not in special measures or another category.

David Chaytor: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that, as drafted, the new clause would allow a school to innovate in admissions policy, and would certainly give a future Secretary of State enormous powers to transform admissions policies by the back door?

Phil Willis: I must confess that when I wrote the new clause, I envisaged that a Liberal Democrat would be in power. The hon. Gentleman knows that we would apply certain rigorous conditions if we were in government. There is a failing in the Bill regarding earned autonomy; eventually, we learned that only 10 per cent. of schools would get earned autonomy. Many schools that were announced today as having outstanding Ofsted reports would not be in that 10 per cent. We want to pin the Government down; we want them to say what innovation means and what its parameters will be. The Secretary of State must know that when she introduces regulations, there will be certain areas in which schools will not be allowed to innovate; I hope that admissions is one of them.

Graham Brady: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) hit on a key flaw in the Bill? Under clause 2, the Secretary of State would have the power to permit selection by ability or aptitude; charging by schools in the maintained sector; and the suspension of special educational needs provision. The power would be limitless. The hon. Member for Bury, North hit on what is wrong in a Bill that gives the Secretary of State enormous power, without providing any constraints or giving the House the capability to control what he or she intends to do with it.

Phil Willis: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said; he put his finger on a great problem with which all Opposition Members have had to wrestle during the passage of the Bill. In Committee, we had insufficient time to examine the meaning of much of the Bill's contents. On Report, we find ourselves with ludicrously little time to deal with crucial issues.
	While it is interesting to analyse a Liberal Democrat new clause, our aim is to try to ensure that the Minister for School Standards and the Secretary of State give a proper explanation of the Bill's intentions. Hon. Members should remember that we have not had much of the promised guidance that would provide an explanation of the Bill.

Michael Fallon: rose—

Chris Grayling: rose—

Phil Willis: I shall make a little progress. I realise that the hon. Gentlemen are so enthralled with the debate that they want it to continue until 10 o'clock at least.
	An illuminating aspect of the Secretary of State's statement this afternoon on Mike Tomlinson's latest report for Ofsted was her response to questions about the increasing division, particularly at secondary level, between schools and children making excellent progress and those not doing so. The whole House shared a sense of frustration that children from Afro-Caribbean backgrounds, from Bangladeshi and Pakistani backgrounds, travellers' children and children in care were not making the progress that we had hoped for. The 2001 GCSE results last summer showed that 30,000 young people were leaving school without a single GCSE between them. That is an indictment of our system. It is not a credit to any of us.
	In answer to questions this afternoon about raising standards at key stage 3, the Secretary of State's vision was that children should have more of the same and be tested more, and that somehow, although that had failed at key stage 2, it would suddenly be a success at key stage 3. I found it an incredibly sad response.
	Many of the children who are switched off by the age of 11, and many of the children, especially from ethnic minority homes, for whom the curriculum is a turn-off as well, attend schools in the lower quartile of the league tables. According to the Government's current policy, as reflected in the Bill, none of those schools will be allowed to innovate. They will all have to follow a tightly controlled prescription from the Secretary of State.
	The Secretary of State and the Minister shake their heads. I am happy for them to intervene to explain that that will not be the case. In reality, that is what is envisaged. The very schools that most need to innovate will be the ones that cannot. New clause 6 deals with that issue.

Michael Fallon: I understand that for the Government, freedom is control. The House must be willing to simplify their extraordinary proposal whereby schools will have to beg for their freedom. Does the hon. Gentleman accept, however, that the weakness of new clause 6, especially subsection (3), is that under the guise of innovation, a school could exempt itself from almost anything—not just admissions, as the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) pointed out, but from obligations on attendance, truancy, discipline, testing or almost anything else? The drafting of subsection (3) is too wide, in almost the same sense as the drafting of subsection (4) is too narrow.

Phil Willis: The hon. Gentleman has his point of view, which he has expressed clearly. In the circumstances that he described, two things would occur. First, the local authority, which has a duty in this regard, would have to intervene. Secondly, when Ofsted inspected, it would fail the school on all those factors and put it into special measures. The school's powers to innovate would thus be lost.
	I have great faith in schools. Of course, at times, like my two newly acquired dogs, they let me down. I should tell the Secretary of State that I have two lovely new dogs, but at times they are a huge disappointment to me. However, I do not want another "Diary" piece on the subject. Generally speaking, I believe that schools are desperate to do a good job.
	As a head teacher for almost 20 years before entering the House, there were times when I looked back and felt that I should have done things differently. Things should have been performed in a better way. We should have taken different decisions. That will inevitably be the case.
	If we want to attack some of the problems in our secondary schools and deal with the issues of under-achievement and of youngsters being turned off, we must free schools so that they can be innovative, and so that they do not have to go to the Secretary of State every time they want to do something different.

Chris Grayling: May I say how much I welcome the hon. Gentleman's conversion to the free schools policy that we advocated at the last general election? As regards the positioning of the new clause within the Bill, would it not cause a legislative problem were the clause to be accepted by the House tonight? In a sense, although the clause might deliver to schools the freedom to innovate that all of us would welcome, it would come directly head to head with the provisions on earned autonomy.
	In one part of the Bill, we would be saying to schools that they had the freedom to innovate, subject to the Secretary of State's imposition of a number of restricted areas, but in another part of the Bill, we would be saying that a school had to apply for the right to innovate. In order to introduce the new clause into the Bill, would we not need to delete substantial chunks from the rest of the Bill?

Phil Willis: The hon. Gentleman, as ever, makes a good point. We never got to the bottom of why the provisions on innovation and earned autonomy were not meshed within the Bill. In many cases, they seem to be one and the same. When we reached the provisions on earned autonomy, which we are not dealing with tonight, we were staggered for two reasons—first, because earned autonomy meant the ability to disapply the national curriculum, or it applied to pay and conditions. That was the extent of earned autonomy.
	Secondly, the Committee was staggered to learn that the extent of the Government's confidence in our secondary schools was that by the end of the Parliament, 10 per cent. of them would have achieved that. That would mean that some of the schools that had been granted specialist status or beacon status would not be considered good enough for earned autonomy. I am trying to deal with that controlling element through the new clause and the amendments. I am sure that when he has the opportunity, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) will speak eloquently and fluently on these matters.

John Pugh: Conservative Members seem to be struggling with the meaning of innovation and autonomy. If those are difficult concepts to follow, they are at any rate embodied in the Bill and probably would be involved in any Conservative free school proposals. Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that Conservative Members are in danger of missing the point of the new clause, which is essentially to decide who has autonomy and the capacity to innovate, and who legitimately should have it?

Phil Willis: The short answer to my hon. Friend is yes. The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) disowned the Conservative policy on education at the last election, and one can understand why. It was a discredited policy and the Conservative party suffered a landslide defeat because it had no real policies on education that people understood. I understand that the hon. Member for Ashford has learned the error of his ways. The party is a reformed party and he is much more friendly and considerate. In that tone, I am trying to engage members of the Conservative party and meet them half way. I am delighted to be able to do so.
	I shall make a little progress—

Mark Hoban: rose—

Phil Willis: I have not given way to the hon. Gentleman. It would be most discourteous of me not to do so.

Mark Hoban: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. For those of us who are new to the debate on innovation and autonomy, I want to clarify the aim of new clauses 5 and 6. I understand that the aim is to give every school the power to innovate, which seems entirely reasonable. From the hon. Gentleman's comments, it seems that the range of areas in which a school can innovate will be set by the Secretary of State. Although the new clause would allow more schools to innovate, there is a risk that the Secretary of State would narrow the areas in which schools could be innovative.

Phil Willis: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I congratulate him on it. How much better that we know the parameters within which schools will be able to innovate than schools spending inordinate amounts of time making presentations to the Secretary of State, only to be told, "I'm very sorry, but that is not an area in which you can innovate." It is that sort of bureaucratic nonsense that I am trying to do away with. Whether or not the drafting of the new clause is as precise as it should be, if the Government were to accept it—I understand that they will accept the principle—they would redraft it in their own image, although it is to be hoped that they would do so slightly better than in respect of the order of consideration.

David Cameron: I still do not follow the hon. Gentleman's point about subsection (4) of new clause 6. Presumably, it would allow the Secretary of State to designate areas in which innovation is not possible. New clause 6 therefore has a push-me-pull-you element, as subsection (3) says that all schools can innovate, while subsection (4) says that the Secretary of State can decide where that is not possible. If he wants free schools, why is he prepared to give so much power to the Secretary of State?

Phil Willis: The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head. I do not want free schools. Indeed, I do not want what the Conservative party proposed at the last election, which was simply a free-for-all. He knows what we said about admissions, which were one of the central planks of the Conservative proposals on free schools. I am not proposing free schools, as I accept that there should be parameters in which schools should work. My argument is simple; indeed, it is so reasonable that I cannot understand why the Government would not accept it. After the parameters have been drawn—it is up to the Government to decide them—all schools should be given the same powers, provided that they are not in special measures. Surely, that is an easy concept for the Government to understand.
	I have tabled a number of minor amendments that feature in this group. Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 would protect schools so that the guidance from the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales has to be taken into consideration. I think that that is eminently reasonable. Amendment No. 66 takes into consideration special education needs. Again, I do not believe that the Secretary of State should have any problem with that. It is important that, whenever a school is innovating, it thinks very carefully about the effect on children with special education needs. There is a great fear that, in terms of innovation, we will drive out of our schools some of the youngsters who need their school most, so the amendment seeks to ensure some protection.
	Amendment No. 68 seeks in respect of the powers to innovate to ensure that schools have a duty to offer a broad and balanced curriculum. It would not be a prescribed curriculum of the sort that we have now, but it would have to be broad and balanced. Amendment No. 67 would establish negotiating structures for schools exempted from the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991. One of the features of the Government's plans in the Bill is a disapplication in respect of teachers' pay and conditions. Although that may be desirable in some cases, it is crucial that teachers have the power to negotiate, and that is what amendment No. 67 seeks to ensure.
	This has, I hope, been an interesting presentation. I appreciate the way in which hon. Members have engaged on the new clause and I commend it to the House.

Graham Brady: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), especially after enjoying so many interesting exchanges with him in Committee in the past few weeks. His exposition was very much in keeping with what we heard in Committee, where we had useful discussions and found an enormous amount of common ground, sometimes in surprising quarters. The hon. Gentleman and I have not always found ourselves in agreement in the past few years, so such common ground is a measure of the depth of some of our concerns. We are anxious not about the Government's objectives in dealing with innovation and autonomy—we all agree that they are laudable—but about their whole approach, and that anxiety is reflected in the extent to which not only Liberal Democrat and Opposition Members, but sometimes Labour Members who are aware of the potential effects of the Bill, have found common cause.
	It is important to consider the provisions in the context of what happened in Committee. It is also important, not least in terms of our exchanges about the change to the order of consideration, that we consider the Minister's own words about the way in which he believes that education legislation should be developed. First, I cite the remarks that he made in the very first sitting of Standing Committee G on the morning of Tuesday 11 December last year:
	"I make no bones about my third introductory point: we want more education measures to be passed through secondary legislation than has traditionally been the case. Education measures have been out of step with other legislation, and thus have been unnecessarily inflexible and unduly prescriptive. The Committee will discuss the many instances in which greater flexibility would help to meet the different circumstances of communities throughout the country".—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 11 December 2001; c. 13.]
	Thus, the Minister stated in very bald terms the preference of Ministers as to how the legislation should be taken forward, which is that as little detail as possible should be included in the Bill and that as much as possible should be left to ministerial discretion and dealt with through secondary legislation with a lower standard of scrutiny.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend talks about a lack of detail in the Bill. Will he try to tell us where in the Bill the concept of innovation is explained? It appears in the new clauses tabled both by Opposition Members and by the Liberal Democrats, but it does not seem to be defined properly in the Bill.

Graham Brady: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Even if I cannot refer him to a definition of innovation, I can at least cite a definition of what the Minister believes it to imply, because he gave a most helpful and instructive explanation in the Committee's second sitting on the afternoon of 11 December. When I pressed him on what innovation should be, he replied:
	"The term 'innovation' implies something new".—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 11 December 2001; c. 54.]
	Thus far, all hon. Members would be with him, but many of us would believe that innovation is a continuing concept in which any entity, whether it is a corporate body, school or public body, would want to engage continually in order constantly to improve its performance. That is the nub of what Opposition Members would like the term "innovation" to embody.

Chris Grayling: rose—

Mark Hoban: rose—

Graham Brady: My hon. Friends will have to wait a little longer to hear the rest of the Minister's definition. I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Grayling), who was on the Committee.

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Does he recognise how disappointing it was in Committee to encounter so many different situations—they are epitomised in the issue of innovation and autonomy—in which Ministers said, "This is what we want to do, but you'll have to take our word for it." We were effectively told that the Secretary of State would provide a definition of innovation through regulations. That does not sound very innovative to me.

Graham Brady: My hon. Friend is right. It was a cause of anxiety throughout our proceedings in Committee that insufficient flesh was put on the Bill's bones.

Mark Hoban: Clause 6 is entitled "Exemptions available to qualifying schools". I took it refer to subjects such as the curriculum and pay and conditions, in relation to which innovations could be made. For the benefit of those of us who did not serve on the Committee, may I ask whether the Minister explained any of the draft regulations that the clause covers and suggested the parameters of the scope for innovation that schools could enjoy?

Graham Brady: The Minister gave a broad idea of the Government's thinking. However, I shall deal with that later, when we consider new clause 10. The Minister's words did not allay our reasonable fears about the use of the provisions. There are two intertwined concepts: innovation and earned autonomy. If my hon. Friend will be a little patient, I am currently trying to deal with the new clauses that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough tabled on exemptions from education legislation that are relevant to innovation.
	I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), who made a point about the definition of innovation, for my delay in reverting to it. Rather than defining innovation, the Minister defined what was not meant by it. Conservative Members would like innovation to be part of schools' culture and thus improve standards and quality in a key public service. However, the Minister said:
	"it would be a bit odd to talk about innovation carrying on for decades. By definition it would no longer be innovation, and should be dealt with in the ordinary legislative way. These powers are appropriate for trying out new things."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 11 December 2001; c. 54.]
	What a bizarre approach to education policy! The Minister suggests that the only new ideas are those that are knocking about in Ministers' heads or locked in a filing cabinet that is not available to other hon. Members.

Andrew Lansley: I am doing a little catching up on the terms that are being used. Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the Government want a period of innovation but not the diversity that would exist in a normal system with freedom to innovate? They want a period of innovation, no diversity, and the ability to reimpose uniformity.

Graham Brady: My hon. Friend may have hit on the truth. I am delighted that he is catching up with the terms, because he has made an important contribution. Ministers do not regard innovation as continual, but as happening for a defined period. The Bill defines a period for which innovation would be deemed appropriate, but allows for the possibility of extending it for a further finite period. However, Ministers reject the suggestion of continuing innovation. That is especially important when we consider the scope of the powers to innovate.
	As we have already established, the powers to innovate are not specific; they are powers to make exemptions from the requirements of education legislation.

George Osborne: Does my hon. Friend agree that reducing bureaucracy in schools would be a genuine innovation? Will he enlighten hon. Members who did not serve on the Committee about whether a discussion took place on the sort of bureaucratic procedures that a school would have to undergo to apply to the Secretary of State for permission to innovate?

Graham Brady: Such a discussion did, indeed, take place. It is worrying that although schools are drowning in a sea of red tape and regulation, the Bill provides for even more. Commercial entities face specific circumstances when they tender for a lucrative project. They can place a major burden on such an organisation. Ministers are trying to replicate those circumstances for schools that apply to innovate. They do not know the circumstances under which Ministers may be prepared to deem that innovation can take place.
	The Bill includes a definition of the breadth of the exemptions from education legislation. That lies at the heart of new clauses 5 and 6, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. I almost called him my hon. Friend, but that proves that we have been in too close proximity for the past few weeks. We shall shortly return to a more natural state.
	The exemptions from education legislation that are relevant to innovation include the ability to make an exemption from any provision of the Education Act 1967, the Education Act 1967, the Education Act 1973, the Education Act 1980, the Education (Fees and Awards) Act 1983, the Further Education Act 1985, the Education Act 1986, the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, the Education Reform Act 1988, the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990, and the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991. The list goes on.
	It may not apply to other hon. Members, but in my five years in Parliament, I have never come across a Government Bill that allows not only exemption from any provision of any existing measure but from the Bill that we are considering. That is the most remarkable attempt by a Government to seize all discretion and power. The Minister confirmed that in terms in Committee on 11 December. He referred to my contribution and said:
	"His other point, which was new"—
	innovative, perhaps—
	"was what he described as the self-referential issue in the Bill. I refer him to clause 2(1)(a), which states that the applicant would have conferred exemption from any requirement imposed by education legislation including, of course, those elements of education legislation that are in the Bill."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 11 December 2001; c. 49.]

George Osborne: My hon. Friend's point is spelled out in the explanatory notes, which state:
	"The clauses allow the Secretary of State . . . to suspend legislative requirements and, if necessary, modify legislation or confer new powers."
	I suppose that it is some comfort that those powers are limited to primary and secondary education legislation.

Graham Brady: We must beware. Earlier in our proceedings, we had an example of the Government tabling amendments without giving notice to the House. We must be careful that other Departments do not take such practice as a model. The exemptions that are relevant to innovation mean that the measure is not simply an Education Bill, but the last Education Bill. It marks the last occasion that any Government have to come to the House to obtain powers.
	Given exemptions in other clauses that we shall examine later, the powers will be sufficient to allow Ministers to do whatever they want. I say that without qualification. The new clauses tabled by the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives try to constrain the powers a little. In Committee, I suggested that although we had heard a great deal about Henry VIII powers, the Bill was a Charles I measure. It tries to dispense altogether with the need to consult Parliament.
	I have given some details of the powers to make exemptions from education legislation. I also took the trouble to obtain a note from the Library on the length of time it had taken the House of Commons to consider all the education measures that clause 2, a small provision, can suspend.
	In 1962, the Second Reading, Standing Committee, Report stage and Third Reading of the Education Act took the House of Commons 47 hours to consider. The House took only five hours to consider the relatively minor matters in the Education Act 1967, but spent a rather more serious 129.25 hours considering the Education Act 1980. I wonder whether any current Labour Members were here at that time—I am not sure whether any of those present have clocked up that length of service—but no doubt they were doing their jobs, as they were permitted to do in those days, by scrutinising the legislation properly.
	I shall not go through all the figures, but 206 hours were spent on debating the Education Reform Act 1988. All the education legislation which under clause 2 could be suspended by ministerial fiat took the House of Commons alone 786 hours to consider. In Committee, we were able to give the current Bill 44.25 hours, and we had just six hours on Second Reading.

Chris Grayling: Does my hon. Friend agree that it was equally shameful to use the knife in our debates in Committee on some of the key parts of the Bill—notably the early stages relating to innovation and earned autonomy, which are the crux of the Bill? At the end of our proceedings, we were awash with time to debate issues in relation to which there was no debate, while in the early stages we had nothing like enough time to devote to the issues in the Bill that really matter.

Graham Brady: I take issue with the latter part of my hon. Friend's point, because even in the later stages of the Committee when we were debating less controversial matters, although we were moving as quickly as humanly possible—I think that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough will bear me out—we were barely able to deal with all the amendments that had been grouped together for those later sittings. The effect was even more damaging when the so-called knife was applied in the earlier sittings. It is a matter of record that huge swathes of the Bill could not be debated in Committee.

George Osborne: I want to make an historical point. My hon. Friend said that we spent more than 40 hours discussing the Bill in Committee. I believe that the House spent more than 40 days in Committee debating Balfour's Education Act. Such things have changed under this Government.

Graham Brady: That is a perfect illustration of why I am so pleased to have my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) in the neighbouring constituency to my own, and of how much things have improved in that regard since last June.
	The effect of the knives in Committee was that we did not conclude our deliberations on clause 11 and we had no debate whatever on clauses 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, or 17. We were allowed a brief discussion on governing bodies under clause 18, but there was no discussion on clauses 19, 20, 21, 22 or 23, which covers federations of schools, all of which are key provisions in the Bill.

Andrew Turner: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Graham Brady: I cannot resist.

Andrew Turner: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem is perhaps that the Government see the House and its Committees as a legislation machine rather than a scrutiny machine? They regard the most efficient kind of legislation machine as one that pumps through the maximum number of clauses—and, doubtless, regulations—in the minimum amount of time. Those of us who see the role of the House as that of a scrutinising machine view it in terms of how it protects the subject against an over-mighty Executive, ensures that those who work in the public sector are protected—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must learn the distinction between an intervention and a mini-speech. He must be much more succinct in an intervention.

Graham Brady: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a telling point—a telling point that could have been made at any stage during the last five years. In one sense, however, the Bill goes a stage further, in the sense that it will create a position in which the House of Commons will move on from being a legislative machine to being totally redundant and having no future role in education legislation. I shall not continue with the long list of clauses that we did not discuss in Committee.

Eric Forth: While my hon. Friend is making this point about time, may I ask whether he is aware that 15 or 16 further groups of amendments to this part of the Bill are still on the Order Paper to be considered? What confidence does he have that the House can possibly do justice to that amount of material—some of which is very substantive and controversial—in only one further sitting?

Graham Brady: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) will not be tempted to pursue that line. We should come back to the terms of the new clause that we are debating.

Graham Brady: I am most grateful for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, some more experienced Members of the House may on occasion take advantage of the relative inexperience of others. I am grateful to you for protecting me from my right hon. Friend—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may be sure that I shall continue to give him the best protection that I can.

Graham Brady: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have also given me the opportunity to move on a little in my consideration of this group of new clauses and amendments.

Andrew Lansley: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Graham Brady: Well, I am trying to move on, but I will take a brief intervention.

Andrew Lansley: My intervention relates to a point that my hon. Friend was making about the extent of the powers that the Government propose to take in clause 2. They are immensely wide-ranging powers to disapply or modify existing education legislation—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are debating new clause 5, and I hope that we can come back to that subject.

Graham Brady: rose—

Andrew Lansley: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Graham Brady: I certainly will, so long as my hon. Friend will take note of your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Andrew Lansley: Absolutely, and, in this respect, I am following the point that my hon. Friend was making: that new clause 5 seeks to extend to local authorities—as new clause 6 extends to qualifying schools—some of the powers in relation to innovation and earned autonomy that would be available without the Secretary of State's scrutiny. The point that I was trying to make is that the wide-ranging powers that the Secretary of State is seeking to take are on the application of a qualifying body. Is my hon. Friend aware of any intention on the part of the Government to solicit applications from qualifying bodies to secure modifications of legislation of a kind that the Government are seeking?

Graham Brady: I am not aware of any intention to solicit such applications, but Ministers might wish to make their position clear in that regard when replying to the debate on this group of amendments.

Chris Grayling: Under new clauses 5 and 6, the qualifying body would not have to make an application. It would be able to take the decision in its own right, and the Secretary of State would then have to stop it.

Graham Brady: My hon. Friend is right. This is where the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough—in new clauses 5 and 6—and our own new clause 10, to which I shall return shortly, seek to shift the balance of this legislation in an important way. A thread runs through the Bill—whether in regard to clauses on exemptions for innovation or on earned autonomy—which suggests that it is up to Ministers to decide when it is appropriate or possible to take such action. The new clauses would make the legislation more permissive by freeing up the whole process and, without suggestions being solicited, schools or other qualifying bodies could make precisely those moves, which is a positive step.

David Cameron: Will my hon. Friend clear up a worrying point that I put to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough? The hon. Gentleman is lending his support to new clauses 5 and 6, but in both, subsection (3) would give autonomy to governing bodies and LEAs while subsection (4) would give the Secretary of State the opportunity to take it away in many circumstances. For the benefit of Conservative Members, will my hon. Friend describe the areas in which the Secretary of State would want to curtail the freedom of schools and governing bodies in such a way?

Graham Brady: My hon. Friend makes an intelligent point—the Liberal Democrat new clauses would have that effect, but I make no criticism of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. Although I do not necessarily support the new clauses, I have enormous sympathy with their thrust. My hon. Friend might sympathise with the hon. Gentleman and be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt had he been with us as we sat through the debates in Committee, during which we were ground down by the Government's relentless attempts to regulate and control so that we might occasionally fall into the trap of believing that that ought to be allowed.
	Before I move on to new clause 10 and the earned autonomy provisions, I must focus briefly on the extent of the exemptions available for innovation. For the convenience of hon. Members, I shall consider amendment No. 79. The origin of the thinking behind it lies in a debate in Committee about the extent to which Ministers are taking unqualified, untrammelled powers to suspend legislation without exemption.
	The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) may be interested to know that we probed the extent of that freedom by raising with the Minister the hypothetical question whether it would be possible to disapply certain aspects of the Education Act 1996 by removing sections 449 to 462, which prevent maintained schools from charging for places. The Minister was good enough to give confirmation:
	"Theoretically, the hon. Gentleman's worry could be valid, but"—
	he was very clear about this; I make no bones about it—
	"I assure him that we would not allow an innovation that would introduce charging or end the right to free education."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 11 December 2001; c. 90.]
	How many hours of debate in the House took place and how much energy, belief and passion were expended in this place to ensure that children in this country have a right to free education? I do not for a moment suggest that the Minister seeks to remove that right, but Members on both sides of the House should be greatly disturbed that the best he could do in response to my question was, "We have no intention of doing it."
	No matter what Members of the House believe about the principle of free, universal education, they will no longer able to rely on it being provided by statute if the Bill becomes law. It will be provided at the whim and discretion of Ministers, which is a matter of grave concern.

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend makes an important point about those pillars of the Bill and I would be interested to hear the views of Liberal Democrat and Labour Back-Bench members of the Committee, but none are present. Does he agree that the specific situation that he has identified effectively shows that the Bill would give this Labour Government and the Secretary of State the power to do certain things—those which would give the hon. Member for Bury, North nightmares—although one might accept that they do not intend to do them?

Graham Brady: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I can only imagine that Labour and Liberal Democrat Back-Bench members of the Committee expected to debate the red herring amendments on faith schools and were surprised by the change to the programme motion. They must have been lulled into a false sense of security, or perhaps they expected to debate these more central matters another time. They have been confused by what the Government Whips chose to do without giving notice to Members on either side of the House.
	Moving on from the point that we established in Committee—the exemption from any provision of education legislation might run as far as allowing maintained schools to introduce fees or charges—we come to amendment No. 79, which raises another concern. I freely admit that we could have tabled a raft of similar amendments, as Ministers seek the power to suspend any provision of education legislation, but amendment No. 79 simply picks on a particularly important aspect of those powers.
	I say again that I accept that Ministers may have no immediate desire to allow charging, but unless we accept amendment No. 79 it will be possible for a maintained school to make such an application to a Minister. Furthermore, in the spirit of good will, which we have tried to re-establish, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) described this Minister as a reasonable and honourable man, although his judgment is occasionally lacking in matters of procedure.
	I see that we shall now gain the enormous benefit of the wisdom of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). We look forward to being enlightened, and hearing his views on the powers the Government are taking to obtain exemptions from legislation that potentially allows maintained schools in his constituencies to charge for places.
	More relevant to amendment No. 79 is the possibility that the Government may accept an application from a qualifying body for that body to be exempted from section 317 of the Education Act 1996. That section deals with the duties imposed on a governing body or local education authority in relation to pupils with special educational needs. As Members on both sides of the House accept, such pupils need special protection and education that meets whatever their needs may be. They may have autistic spectrum disorders, or physical disabilities. In any event, the 1996 Act currently provides a guarantee—a degree of certainty—that the special needs of a pupil in a maintained school will, as far as is reasonable, be met by the governing body and the local education authority.
	I hope that Ministers will give a warm welcome to the amendment, which would give them an opportunity to guarantee the protection of children with special educational needs—not just in the generality of schools or in the specialist colleges whose expansion the Government are announcing, but in schools granted exemptions for purposes of innovation.
	It is not beyond the realms of credibility that a school might make a bid for exemption from some requirements relating to special educational needs. It might avoid considerable costs by doing so. It is not far-fetched to imagine that at some point a school, while not saying that it did not want to make any SEN provision, might say that an aspect of such provision placed too heavy a burden on it. At present, Ministers are insisting on retaining the power to disapply that obligation. Amendment No. 79 would have the important effect of presenting such disapplications.
	I hope Ministers will not just accept the specific terms of the amendment, and the fact that its aim is right, proper and important, but understand from the two examples given by the Opposition—the first, in Committee, relating to the introduction of charges and the second, on Report, relating to protection for those with special educational needs—that there is real concern about the limitless scope of the powers that they seek.
	New clause 10 is particularly important. The theme was established by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, who tabled new clauses 5 and 6. New clause 5 seeks to allow a local education authority to innovate without the Secretary of State's permission—although, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, subsection (4) would give the Secretary of State some power to control that freedom. New clause 6 would allow a school to innovate without the Secretary of State's permission, with a similar caveat in subsection (4). I know that the Secretary of State is keen to have powers to control the process, but she is clearly confident that the new clauses will find favour on both sides of the House, as she has not felt it necessary to stay in order to witness that support.
	New clause 10 takes the whole issue by the scruff of the neck. It attempts to change the balance. Opposition Members strongly support the move to give schools more autonomy. We believe that they are generally better able than Ministers to run their affairs, raise educational standards and give children the best possible education. In almost all circumstances, schools, heads, teachers and governing bodies should be left to get on with their work with the maximum freedom that is reasonable.

Chris Grayling: The importance of the new clause was highlighted in today's Ofsted report, which says:
	"Problems in the recruitment and retention of suitably qualified teachers have increased; the situation is considerably worse in London than elsewhere.
	Teacher shortages are leading to the increased use of temporary supply teachers and the use of permanent teachers to teach subjects in which they are not adequately qualified".
	Does my hon. Friend recognise that the freedoms that the new clause would give heads and governing bodies may go some small way to providing the flexibility that would enable them to overcome the recruitment problems which are causing the difficulties highlighted by the chief inspector in the report?

Graham Brady: My hon. Friend is right and I am grateful for the point that he makes.
	To give Ministers credit, they have recognised that there is a severe problem of retention and recruitment in the teaching profession. They know that problems and difficulties are being caused for many schools, not just in the south-east, but in much of the country. They have responded by introducing provisions for earned autonomy—autonomy related to school performance, as they phrase it—but as is typical of their policies as a whole and as is endemic in the Bill they miss the point. They say, "Autonomy is a good thing, schools should be free to make more decisions for themselves—but only when we say so." They bring the whole thing back to the Secretary of State's office. Ministers decide when autonomy is a good thing and when it is not. That is not autonomy; it is central control. That is where the Government increasingly fall down, even when they have some inkling of the right direction in which they should be travelling.
	The documents that the Minister gave to Committee members and has now given to other hon. Members to provide some detail of how the Government envisage allowing autonomy in certain circumstances raise more concerns than they settle. Many people have cast doubt on the validity of using free school meals to decide whether a school is performing well or not compared with other schools in its band. The use of the free school meals measure has been widely discredited. Normally Ministers would accept that, but they are so baffled as to how to measure plausibly which schools should be allowed autonomy and which not, that they have fallen back on the free school meals criteria.

Mark Hoban: May I give my hon. Friend an example of the problem with using free school meals as an indicator of performance? I was talking to the head master of a local secondary school, who pointed out that the take-up rate for free school meals in his school was 6 per cent., but in feeder primary schools it was 9 per cent. Families do not suddenly become richer when their children move from primary to secondary school. The use of a crude school measure such as free school meals seems lamentable.

Graham Brady: My hon. Friend is right. I will be interested to hear what the Minister's justification is for the use of the free school meals criteria, because Ministers do not normally give credence to that measure of social need in regard to school performance.
	The extent to which Ministers have sought to put flesh on the bones of the provision does not merely fail to answer questions, but raises many more issues that need to be settled. The Government have taken an odd approach whereby they claim to believe in autonomy for schools, but then attempt to row back from it and explain how they might interpret when autonomy is appropriate and when it is not. It is an extremely odd provision. New clause 10 would turn the Bill away from the plethora of ill-thought-out draft regulations that Ministers have in mind.

David Cameron: To be fair, my hon. Friend should put some flesh on the bones of new clause 10, which seeks to give all maintained schools freedom over pay and conditions but then states in subsection (2) that there may be circumstances in which a school will not be eligible for automatic exemption. Surely my hon. Friend should explain the circumstances in which his proposed regulations would apply.

Graham Brady: Absolutely. I plead guilty and I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend identify an apparent irregularity in the expert drafting of new clause 10. I should point out that I was charitable when he sought to make similar points about the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. I plead the same defence as I allowed the hon. Gentleman to use.
	The Bill gives Ministers total control, discretion and freedom. They can do precisely as they wish. So whatever we attempt in new clauses—even if we allow Ministers reserve powers and trust them in a way in which they do not trust schools—in some circumstances it may be necessary to constrain autonomy or the freedom to innovate.

Phil Willis: The hon. Gentleman has been generous in his comments. Our respective new clauses reiterate the same principle. We want the Government to set out in regulations, or in new legislation, the conditions in which schools would not get either earned autonomy or the power to innovate. That would be much healthier, as it would cut out a whole raft of bureaucracy involving schools having to apply and then being knocked back. We have all suffered from the whole business of bidding, which is something we want to avoid.

Graham Brady: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. Transparency and clarity are crucial to schools that may want to take advantage of the earned autonomy provisions. If we do not have that transparency and clarity, schools will end up wasting more time—which they can ill afford to do—and more of their resources will be taken up with bids and projects which ultimately do not come to fruition, but which they have no earthly way of knowing will not find favour with Ministers.
	New clause 10 would improve the Bill as it provides for regulations setting out the circumstances in which automatic exemption would not be appropriate. However there is a more important reason for accepting new clause 10: it would change the burden of proof. At present Ministers assume that schools are guilty until proved innocent. Ministers believe that schools are not capable of managing their own affairs and that it is not reasonable for them to have autonomy except in specific circumstances that Ministers have approved.
	New clause 10—I accept that new clauses 5 and 6 take somewhat the same direction—seeks to shift the burden of proof and establish a different premise. If accepted, it would make it clear that we trust schools, head teachers, teachers—whether professional staff or the volunteers who do such important work in making schools function—and governors to do their job. The less Ministers interfere in what such people are doing, and the more freedom and discretion they are given, the better the job that they are likely to do.

George Osborne: I very much welcome the new clause that my hon. Friend is introducing. In Committee, did the Minister give some idea of take-up by estimating the number of schools or local education authorities that will apply under the unamended clauses? Without such an estimate we should surely err on the side of giving many schools freedom, which is what the new clause would provide.

Graham Brady: As far as I am aware, the Minister did not estimate the number of schools that are likely to gain exemptions relating to innovation.

Stephen Timms: indicated assent

Graham Brady: The Minister says that I am correct, but he did estimate the number of schools that might initially qualify for earned autonomy. He suggested that an initial figure of 10 per cent. would be expected gradually to increase, although—perhaps reasonably—he was not prepared to predict a timetable for how soon a given percentage would qualify.
	Of course, that figure depends greatly on the criteria set out by Ministers in the draft regulations. It is impossible to predict exactly how many would qualify against such an arbitrary yardstick as the free school meal test, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) said, can differ from school to school, from area to area, and perhaps from year to year. In principle, under this measure Ministers might grant a school so-called earned autonomy in one year because it was in the top 25 per cent. of the free school meal band, but if the number of free school meals subsequently fell because a new factory or business opened nearby and brought new jobs to the area, the band would change and the school—without any change in its performance or the individuals educated there—might no longer qualify. I doubt whether Ministers intend to withdraw earned autonomy in such circumstances, but these rather odd provisions leave open that possibility.
	New clause 10 deals with a matter of principle—the extent to which we in this House are prepared to trust and respect schools, and give them dignity, by accepting that they are better at doing their own job than Ministers are. It would shift the emphasis away from the assumption of Ministers that—at the moment, at least—90 per cent. of schools are not capable of qualifying for earned autonomy, to the assumption that schools are capable of so qualifying, unless there is a reason why they should not.
	I am not going to estimate the number of schools that might be expected to qualify for earned autonomy if the new clause were accepted, but if Ministers do not accept it they should reflect on the balance that they are seeking to enshrine in the Bill. Accepting new clause 10 would send the positive message to schools that we want them to have the freedom to flourish. Without new clause 10, the Bill will send the negative message that Ministers do not trust schools to perform, other than in the circumstances that Ministers prescribe.
	I therefore commend new clause 10 to the House.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I confess that some of the distinctions and definitions in the Bill with which hon. Members have been wrestling are new to me, but I think that I have comprehended them sufficiently to be able to make a small contribution to the debate. I know that other Conservative Members want to participate as well, so I shall not tarry too long.
	The new clauses under debate make it clear that there is a commendable desire among Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members to provide that requirements in relation to the curriculum and pay and conditions are lifted from schools, except where specific circumstances mean that those requirements should be reimposed. I understood the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) to say that, with new clause 6, he was thinking in particular about the reimposition of those requirements on schools considered, broadly speaking, to be failing. I suspect that the same is broadly true with the proposals in new clause 10, as set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), in relation to the earned autonomy provisions.

David Cameron: I was wondering also whether subsection (2) of new clause 10 would be used to exempt failing schools from the freedom suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposal could be used to exempt schools of a certain size? Many smaller schools, especially smaller primary schools, might not want to have extra freedom. Could not new clause 10 be used in that way?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I have wrestled in my area of Cambridgeshire with the extent to which schools seek the devolution of budgets. Secondary schools in Cambridgeshire—in the main, they should properly be described as village colleges—are happy to have delegation of budgets, and will take it on. However, many primary schools have not been as confident about taking on that responsibility. They either want the process to happen in stages, or they want to take on delegated budgets in concert with other schools, in partnership arrangements or under the umbrella of one of the schools to which they feed their pupils.

Andrew Turner: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is dangerous to set such hard and fast rules as perhaps were implied by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady)? Some very small schools were extremely successful as grant-maintained schools. They include the famous school in Cheshire that had more governors than pupils when it became grant maintained.

Andrew Lansley: I will always defer to my hon. Friend in his knowledge of the successes and experiences of schools that used the autonomy available under the grant- maintained scheme. I shall not dwell on that matter, save to say that it is possible, under new clause 10, to have a permissive arrangement by which schools that do not benefit from automatic exemption can opt themselves out of the process, so to speak. However, I suspect that we will soon find that, as schools use autonomy and demonstrate the benefits that accrue from that in terms of raising standards for pupils, other schools in the area will think of going in the same direction. Happily, that is what was increasingly becoming the case with grant- maintained schools.
	It seems to me that Conservative Members want to ensure that there is a presumption in favour of a power to innovate for schools, except for those schools whose governance, demonstrated accountability and performance are clearly inadequate when it comes to using that autonomy constructively, and which must therefore be excluded. In other words, do we want to ensure that there is a presumption in favour of autonomy for schools, except for a category of schools that have not demonstrated that there would be reasonable confidence in their communities that they would use that autonomy well? If so, would these new clauses deliver that effectively?
	We have not dwelt much on new clause 5. I have the greatest respect for my local government colleagues. Indeed, as a vice-president of the Local Government Association I declare an interest, and I want, wherever possible, to support the views of local government. When the Minister responds to the debate, I hope that he will repeat what he said on 11 December: where there is to be a substantial use of the powers, it will be done through and in consultation with local education authorities. That point is important for the LGA and its members would be happy for the Minister to reiterate it.
	That should not mean that new clause 5 is implemented, however. There is a risk that, by freeing LEAs from the constraint that the Secretary of State must remove any requirement placed on them, LEAs would be able to establish schools and to overturn existing planned infrastructures; for example, if they did not welcome measures taken by a school to take over LEA responsibilities or to implement its own schemes for admission and so forth. That would be undesirable.
	The autonomy that we want will be exercised by schools on behalf of their pupils. That is the boundary that we want to set. If LEAs are offered the possibility to exercise that exemption from education legislation on their own behalf, it would be a much wider extension of their powers than we want. The Secretary of State might then have to reimpose limitations on LEAs, as their ability to act autonomously would be far too wide.
	Such powers are incompatible with the nature of a local education authority as distinct from a school. An LEA is, in essence, a creature of statute. With the exception of certain recently introduced general duties to the population of the area, people in LEAs—like those throughout local government—know that they are operating within statutory confines. They know where their powers lie; they know what lies within those powers and what is outside them.
	In that sense, a school is not a creature of statute. It is a community that may have been established outside statute, but has been brought into the maintained sector because of the funding stream. If we gave an LEA the autonomy proposed in the new clause, it might act in such a way that it became difficult to hold it accountable because it had disapplied its statutory limitations. A school, however, is inherently accountable to its own community.

Graham Brady: My hon. Friend's point gives me an opportunity to deal with an aspect of new clauses 5 and 6 that I failed to address during my earlier remarks. If we consider the new clauses as a suite—one relating to LEAs and one to schools—it might be reasonable to assume that the power to innovate under new clause 5 related to the LEA own activities rather than to those of schools. However, has my hon. Friend considered that, taken separately, new clause 5 might allow LEAs to take and implement powers with regard to schools in the area without the permission, consent or agreement of those schools?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is following the same line of thought as me. New clause 5 would enable an LEA to disapply legislation affecting it. In effect, the LEA could take upon itself the power to restructure its funding relationship with all the schools in its area and to change the planning framework. As my hon. Friend made clear, the LEA could restructure its responsibilities for special educational needs and the statementing of pupils. Given the nature of the powers in clause 2 that new clause 5 would vary, the LEA would also have the power to restructure its services and activities in relation to schools and pupils outside its area. In effect, we would create competing authorities.
	Competition may be a good thing, but we have not contemplated competition between local education authorities that are free to disapply education legislation and enter into a free-for-all in an urban area. I am not sure that it would be wise to contemplate that on the basis of new clause 5, which seems to contain none of the subsequent safeguards that should be imposed, whereas I feel much less perturbed by new clause 6. Under new clause 6, such freedom would be given to the governing bodies of maintained schools. That would fit the philosophy of many schools, as they were established as self-governing communities, so new clause 6 seems perfectly reasonable.
	The issue therefore with new clause 6 is not whether it is right in principle, but whether it is effective, or defective, in practice. That is rather different, and it is where I part company with the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. Under subsection (4) of new clause 6, with the stroke of the Secretary of State's pen, all the control that the Secretary of State wished to exercise over the power to innovate could be reintroduced, but that could be done in a more damaging way because of its drafting. To prevent schools from using the powers that they would be given under new clause 6, the Secretary of State would probably have to designate many of the requirements imposed under education legislation as a whole.
	Under new clause 6, the Secretary of State would not be allowed to designate those requirements imposed under education legislation in relation to a specific subset of schools. It would be sensible, for example, to think of a new form of qualifying school, as is implied in subsequent clauses that we shall be discussing, and apply that to new clause 6.

Phil Willis: I follow the drift of what the hon. Gentleman says, but does he accept that new clause 10 has the same defects? Unless the Bill stated the ways in which schools would be allowed innovate, we would fall into the same trap. I am trying not to inhibit schools from innovating in the ways that they want to innovate, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) is also trying not to do that. We do not know how schools will innovate; if we did, we could prescribe much more easily.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I was speaking of two defects in new clause 6, the first of which, as he implies, could be also attributed to new clause 10. Again, under subsection (2) of new clause 10, the Secretary of State could simply reintroduce all the restrictions that might otherwise apply. The second defect in new clause 6 is that the order re-imposing requirements would not discriminate between classes of schools, but there is no such defect in new clause 10. That is important because it links directly to the principle of earned autonomy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West so ably explained, earned autonomy is presumed; it is not the exception.
	On the defect by which the Secretary of State could reintroduce all those restrictions with the stroke of a pen, new clause 10 is safer because it is specific about the areas in which earned autonomy would be presumed to be extended to schools. New clause 10 makes it clear that earned autonomy would relate to specific parts of the curriculum and to pay and conditions. By extension, it would be difficult for the Secretary of State, by order, simply to disapply new clause 10. It would be easy for schools then to say, "Why not let us have that freedom and that possibility?"
	After the Bill is passed, Ministers will come to use their order-making powers. I hope that they will behave like Ofsted, which is trying to ensure that not only do outstanding schools deliver exceptional results for their pupils, but that the great many schools that are comfortable to be in the middle of the performing range—and do not see the necessity of increasing their performance so that it becomes among the very best—realise that they have the freedoms and autonomy to deliver.

George Osborne: Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment that Ministers and Government Whips have spent the last 10 minutes in a huddle, instead of listening to his excellent speech. Is that because, as I suspect, this part of the Bill is receiving more scrutiny than they had hoped?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West, I have not been a Member that long, but I have been here long enough to realise that to expect Ministers to listen to what Opposition Members are saying is a stretch too far. However, I am glad to see that I have regained the attention of the Minister for School Standards.
	If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will forgive me a tiny digression, I must point out that, as a former civil servant, I recall that, from time to time, what Members say in the House is read, if not by Ministers, by their officials. That can produce some benefit in the subsequent implementation of legislation, often through the use of Ministers' pens, even if their minds are not necessarily wholly engaged. We shall see what happens in this case.
	I must sit down in a minute, because I have said nearly all the things that I wanted to say—and a few more. However, I want to endorse the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West about amendment No. 79 by comparison with the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats, particularly amendment No. 66 and the amendments that are consequential on it. It seems that the Liberal Democrats are trying to reinsert some protection through amendment No. 66, whereas, in fact, the protection already exists in legislation.
	Parliament expressed a specific intention in 1996 in relation to special educational needs. When Parliament has been clear in the past about a particular obligation that it wishes to be fulfilled under all circumstances, it is perfectly reasonable, as my hon. Friend made clear, to endorse such an approach today and not give Ministers the freedom to disapply Parliament's intentions at their whim in the future.
	As I explained, I cannot support new clause 5. New clause 6 is defective, and, although some of the criticisms might be applied to new clause 10, they are not sufficiently valid. I therefore have every confidence in supporting new clause 10.

Chris Grayling: This group of new clauses and amendments apply to what I regard as the most important part of the Bill. If the Bill is passed—whether or not as amended by the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady)—it will have a profound effect on our education system. At least in theory, it will take us back in the direction of the aspirations of the last Conservative Government for grant-maintained schools, and in the direction of those that the Conservative party has subsequently espoused for free schools.
	As we have heard tonight, a question remains about the degree to which the Bill—far from delivering the aspirations in it—will take us towards greater centralisation by putting more powers into the hands of the Secretary of State. To that end, I applaud this group of new clauses, even though I find some of the detail of the new clauses extremely difficult to endorse, as they contain particular flaws.
	New clause 5 extends the power to innovate to a local education authority. It gives it the right to implement an innovative project that it believes will help to raise educational standards achieved by children or adults in its area. A fine-sounding ambition—except that it does not address how the relationship between the LEA and the school would work and how a decision on an innovative project taken by the LEA would work when set against the school's decision to innovate.
	Let me clarify that by giving a topical example. If an LEA decides to restructure a school's academic year and move to a system of five and six terms instead of three, what right would schools have to say, "No thanks. This is not something that we want to pursue"? I know that people in education and LEAs are interested in that, but equally schools desire stability. They want an end to the seemingly relentless process of change and to allow the initiatives that are in place to bed down.
	What would happen in those circumstances? Would the LEA have the power to impose the new school year on schools in its area or could those schools turn around and say that it is not right for them? I am happy to take an intervention from the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough if he wants to clarify that.

Phil Willis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity to respond. He makes a valid point. The omission from new clauses 5, 6 and, with respect, new clause 10 is that they do not address the relationship that schools have with their local authority, so it would be necessary to clarify joint arrangements. However, it is not our intention—the hon. Gentleman might have to take my word for this—to make local authorities go back to the old days when they controlled schools. I am sure we all accept that those days have gone. New clause 5 would ensure that innovative projects could be used to raise standards. Inevitably, that would mean working with schools, not ordering them to do things. I would expect the regulations by the Secretary of State—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman was invited to intervene, but it still has to be an intervention, not a speech.

Chris Grayling: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that clarification. I also thank the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough for responding to my comments.
	My second concern about new clause 5 relates to subsection (3). It would allow an authority
	"to exempt, relax or modify any innovative project from any requirement imposed by education legislation on the authority."
	It is not clear whether that would simply apply to legislation as it relates to the LEA itself or whether the LEA would have the right to intervene to prevent a school from deciding to innovate and exempt itself from a piece of legislation. That point of clarification would be required were the new clause to become law.
	My third concern relates to new clauses 5 and 6, which would create areas of conflict between the Secretary of State and a school. In subsection (4) of both new clauses, the hon. Gentleman sets out that
	"The Secretary of State shall by order designate any requirement imposed by education legislation . . . as not subject to exemption, relaxation or modification"
	by either the LEA or the governing body of a school. None the less, unless the Secretary of State sets out detailed processes of exemption, there may be regular conflicts between schools that are seeking to innovate and a Secretary of State who, for example, seeks to protect the national curriculum.
	Suppose that a school decided to innovate in modern languages and move away from simply offering French and German, the most common languages offered by secondary schools. It would lose those languages from the curriculum and adopt other languages that would give it a distinctive position in its catchment area. It could offer Japanese and Spanish as prime languages in the curriculum rather than the conventional languages. In such a situation, the Secretary of State might conceivably say that she did not want that, then seek to intervene to prevent that innovation.
	There would therefore be a conflict between the school and the Secretary of State about what precisely the school could do. I am concerned that new clause 5(4) and new clause 6(4) are too vague about the areas in which the Secretary of the State has the power to intervene and say that something is not acceptable. If we are going to give schools the freedom to innovate, which, undoubtedly Conservative Members would like—I suspect the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough increasingly wants it too—we need to define carefully in legislation which areas are covered; otherwise, schools do not have guidance to decide when they can, and cannot, innovate.

Andrew Lansley: Does my hon. Friend agree that the new clause would make it possible for a school governing body to disapply all its data collection, information and accountability functions? In effect, the Secretary of State would not have to be told about that; she would simply discover that the school governing body had taken that action when the figures stopped coming in or when Ofsted was turned away at the school gates.

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend has highlighted the fact that a school would only discover whether it was allowed to do something when it tried it; the Secretary of State might then have to intervene to say no, which would give rise to conflict.
	Conflict could also arise with faith schools, which could use the powers enshrined in new clause 6. It is particularly appropriate to consider faith schools, given the participation of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough in tabling later new clauses. One could easily envisage a faith school wanting to innovate in a way deemed inappropriate by the Secretary of State. It might wish to restructure the curriculum, change admissions policy, change religious education in the school, and so on. It is conceivable that a school may seek to innovate, then discover that it was in conflict with the Secretary of State who, again, would have to intervene after the event to say, "No, you may not do that."

Mark Hoban: Is not one problem that, by applying to the Secretary of State for the power to innovate on a case by case basis, a great deal of uncertainty is introduced into the system? For example, the current Secretary of State is very much in favour of faith schools. If, however, she was replaced by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), he might veto proposals on faith schools, although the right hon. Lady would accept them.

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend makes a good point which speaks for itself. New clauses 5 and 6 are admirable in their aspirations, but their detail would create too many complexities and problems for the House to accept them in their current form, given that we have a duty to try to produce the most effective and best-quality legislation which works in practice.
	I have a particular concern about the way that the two new clauses and the part of the Bill that they seek to enhance would work in relation to admissions procedures. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough is offering schools greater freedom to choose their own admissions procedure. The Government claim that to some degree schools have that. I recently experienced in my constituency the limitations of the freedom that schools currently enjoy.
	Blenheim high school in my constituency, an enormously popular school, has this year been forced to turn away 180 pupils seeking places at that school, despite the fact that only a few months ago the school sought to change its admissions policy to enable a number of those who have been turned away to attend the school. That change to the admissions policy was overturned by the schools adjudicator, following a complaint by the London borough of Sutton, which is controlled by the party of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough—a decision that I very much regret, because of the difficulty that it is creating for young people in my constituency.
	We know that school admissions are a difficult matter. A school might choose to amend its admissions policy not necessarily for any reason related to selection by academic ability, but simply because it wants to reflect a local geographic issue. If the Secretary of State retains the power to intervene and tell the school that it cannot do so, that creates a potential conflict between schools and the Secretary of State.
	On new clause 10, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West for the aspirations that the clause reflects. One of my great disappointments in the Bill and in the Government's handling of education has been the lack of tangible action to address the great disparities in the rewards offered to the education profession in different parts of the country.
	Those disparities were clearly shown in the answer to a written question that I tabled this week. I asked the Department what the ratio was between the salary of a newly qualified teacher three years in the job and average house prices in London, Surrey, Yorkshire and Tyne and Wear. The disparities are enormous. Essentially, a teacher who has been in a job for three years on average earnings for that profession can afford to buy the average house in the north-east and in Yorkshire. In London and the south-east the ratio of an average teacher's salary to the average house price is 1:8.
	The practical reality is that costs in the south-east of England are making it massively more difficult for our schools to attract teachers. I mentioned the Ofsted report. It is worth dwelling on the comments made about the issues dealt with by new clause 10. The report highlights the problems of schools in London, the south-east and other areas where housing costs are high. It states:
	"In all types of school, the situation in London is considerably worse than elsewhere in the country. Vacancy levels in London primary schools in January were 3.3 per cent."
	Those are fundamentally difficult problems for schools in London and the south-east. We need tangible action to solve those problems. One way of doing that is to give schools greater flexibility to set different pay and conditions to meet individual recruitment needs. I know about specific cases in which schools needed to bend the rules to bring in teachers, after they had advertised time and again for vacancies to be filled and not received applications.

Andrew Lansley: Is my hon. Friend aware of the work that was done in examining changes to the area cost adjustment in the revenue support grant system, which looked at specific costs, as they are called? Although there are national pay scales, the use of flexibility within those pay scales is already evident in response to local labour market pressures. Does my hon. Friend agree that in addition to what is required under the Bill, there should be allocations of funding to local authorities and to schools to reflect those different costs? For example, it cannot be right for a school in Hertfordshire to receive £277 per pupil more than a school in Cambridgeshire.

Chris Grayling: I endorse my hon. Friend's comments. I hope that, if the Government accept new clause 10, it will give schools the flexibility to adjust their pay and conditions to meet local recruitment needs. If that happens, the Minister should then go to the Treasury and make the strongest possible representations about support for our education system that reflects the very disparate needs of teachers in different parts of the country. I hope that the Government will help our head teachers to fill the gaps that they currently have great difficulty in filling, remove the need for them to recruit from abroad to such a degree and provide real solutions to a problem that is becoming serious and which the inspectorate said would have an adverse impact on exam results in future years. If we start down that road by implementing a provision such as new clause 10, we will begin to address the issue and to provide our schools with the flexibility in the system that is necessary for tackling the problem.
	Amendments Nos. 79, 130 and 131 deal with the importance of special educational needs. In Committee, the Opposition tabled a significant number of amendments merely to clarify the role of schools, governing bodies and LEAs in relation to special educational needs. It was disappointing that the Government systematically rejected them. Amendments Nos. 79, 130 and 131 restate the importance of special educational needs and give the Government the opportunity to change their mind and accept that they could enhance the Bill in relation to SENs and send out to the country a clearer signal about their importance. The amendments would clarify for governing bodies this area of responsibility and the decisions that they cannot take.

Eleanor Laing: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is reasonable to go further and say that if the Government do not accept amendments Nos. 130, 131 and 79, they will effectively be demonstrating that they do not give proper attention to special needs and are unwilling to safeguard special needs education in the way in which members of the Committee and the Opposition would wish them to do?

Chris Grayling: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. She makes the case for the amendments very clearly. There is no reason for the Government to say no to them. If they accept them, they will send out a powerful signal about the importance of SEN provision in our schools and demonstrate that we care about and are committed to the educational interests of children of all abilities, including those with particular needs as well as those with particular abilities. If they reject them, they will be sending out a wholly negative signal on this important matter.
	In conclusion, I hope that the Government will accept new clause 10 and amendments Nos. 79, 130 and 131, as they are significant contributions to tackling the financial problems of our country that would also send a clear signal about the importance of special educational needs. I hope that they will accept that the amendments would be an important part of the Bill and should go forth as such from the House.

David Cameron: I rise to speak to new clauses 5, 6 and 10. I have to tell the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) that I have misgivings about new clauses 5 and 6, for reasons that I shall explain. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), I see a lot of merit in new clause 10.
	New clauses 5 and 6 would basically extend the power to promote innovative projects to two groups other than those envisaged in the Bill—LEAs and governing bodies. New clauses 5 and 6 suffer from the problem of push me, pull you, which I mentioned earlier. They give extra freedom with one hand and take it away with the other.
	The Bill is a "Whitehall knows best" measure. The first lines of the first chapter demonstrate that by stating:
	"The purpose of this Chapter is to facilitate the implementation by qualifying bodies of innovative projects that may . . . in the opinion of the Secretary of State, contribute to the raising of the educational standards achieved by children in England".
	I stress,
	"in the opinion of the Secretary of State".
	No one matters except the right hon. Lady. With great respect to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, I am not sure whether new clauses 5 and 6 help.
	We all support allowing schools to be innovative to improve education. However, it is remarkable that the ability to do that will be at the whim of the Secretary of State. I want to make some detailed points about new clauses 5 and 6.

Frank Dobson: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that someone else would be better qualified than the Secretary of State to make decisions, or more accountable? Is he one of the people who believes that we should keep politics out of politics?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire beat me to it when he said earlier that schools should have more power to make the decisions. In the Bill, it appears that only the Secretary of State's opinion counts. We should give schools the freedom to decide. New clauses 5, 6 and 10 would partly achieve that, but I am worried that new clauses 5 and 6 confer a power and then take it away.
	New clauses 5 and 6 and the Bill deal with innovation, but it is difficult to find a definition in the measure or the explanatory notes. What exactly does the Secretary of State hope that the schools will achieve? Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) said that, in Committee, the Minister had described innovation as simply something new.
	New clauses 5 and 6 appear to envisage a narrow definition of innovation and innovative projects. New clause 6 describes them as contributing
	"to the raising of educational standards achieved by registered pupils at the school."
	It should go further. Some projects may benefit future pupils more than current pupils. Is "educational standards" too narrow? Perhaps some schools want to develop projects with other parts of the community. The definition should therefore be wider.
	The real problem with new clauses 5 and 6 is the push-me-pull-you element. In new clause 5(3), the local education authority and in new clause 6(3), the governing body
	"may resolve to exempt, relax or modify any innovative project"
	from education legislation, as the Secretary of State can do under the Bill. That is a laudable objective; schools should have the power to do that. However, in both new clauses, subsections (4) give the power to the Secretary of State
	"to designate any requirement imposed by education legislation . . . as not subject to exemption".
	The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough gives with one hand and allows the Secretary of State to take away with the other.

Phil Willis: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman with increasing frustration. Is he saying that the Conservative party would allow schools to do exactly what they wanted, including ordering all students to appear nude or beating them with sticks?

David Cameron: Of course not, but when I intervened on the hon. Gentleman and asked him to be more specific about the powers that he would give to the Secretary of State, answer came there none.
	New clause 10 is a much better provision. As my hon. Friends the Members for South Cambridgeshire and for Altrincham and Sale, West suggested, it contains a presumption in favour of the freedom to give all maintained schools—except a very small number of them—power over pay and conditions. In Oxfordshire, there is a serious problem with recruiting and retaining good teachers—a problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) also referred—and the average price of a house in west Oxfordshire last year was £180,000. I am not sure what formula my hon. Friend might apply to that in his work-out, but such issues create huge problems.

George Osborne: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the purchase of a house by the previous Member for Witney raised the average house price in west Oxfordshire?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is tempting me to say something that I am sure the occupant of the Chair would not allow. That purchase probably fell in a different year, but that may well have been the case.

Frank Dobson: Not many teachers could have bought it.

David Cameron: That is true. You could fit a lot of teachers in it, though, if you wanted to. Probably more than enough, in fact.
	There is a problem for teachers who need to be able to afford housing in Oxfordshire. New clause 10 would help them, and that is why I shall support my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West when the matter is put to a vote tonight.

George Osborne: I wish to speak briefly to new clause 10, which has been so ably introduced by my good friend and neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). I often think that the west of Sale does not get the recognition that it deserves when he is referred to.
	There is a welcome recognition in the new clauses and amendments of an important principle, which is that more freedom, more autonomy, and more innovation in our education system is a good thing. The fact that that principle is embodied, albeit inadequately, in an Education Bill introduced by a Labour Government shows just how far the education debate has moved on from the days of Tony Crosland, when Labour Governments wanted to make all schools exactly the same. It also illustrates the progress that Conservative Governments made in establishing the principle that excellence lies in diversity in our education system.
	I welcome the principle of freedom and innovation behind the new clauses, and I welcome the fact that that has been accepted by those on the Labour Front Bench; I suspect that such principles do not seep deeply into the Labour Back Benches, but we shall see. My hon. Friends the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West, for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), and the hon. Member for Harrogate—

Frank Dobson: And Knaresborough.

George Osborne: The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), as the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) reminds me. I am sorry that we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman only in interventions today. Many of us were looking forward to a more lengthy contribution from him. [Hon. Members: "Sit down then!"] Labour Members do not want these clauses to get the scrutiny that they deserve. We saw the shenanigans of the Labour Whips earlier today, and it is a good thing that these important parts of the Bill have indeed had the scrutiny that they deserve.
	The Government are saying to schools, "We will decide when you can have freedom from central Government, and when you can't." Well, that is no freedom at all. I know that it is new Labour's idea of freedom, but it is not real freedom if the power lies with the Secretary of State. It is, however, completely consistent with the trend that all education legislation introduced by this Government has taken. Everyone involved in education knows exactly what that means; it means more bureaucracy for schools, more form filling and more red tape. Wilmslow high school in my constituency went through a lengthy process of applying for specialist arts status, only to have it refused. That school knows what it is like to go through that process. We can all imagine that a similar range of red tape and form filling will be required for schools applying for innovative status.
	Real freedom involves a presumption in favour of autonomy. Real freedom is embodied in new clause 10. Real freedom is the freedom to innovate, set teachers' pay and conditions, decide the structure of the school day and year and opt out of certain prescriptive elements of the curriculum. There are important exceptions, which are embodied in subsection (2) of the new clause and the amendments exempting special educational needs children, but freedom should be the rule, not the exception. That is why I support our new clause.

Stephen Timms: We have had an extensive debate on the changes. Let me pick up some detailed points. I stress that the proposals on the power to innovate, which new clauses 5 and 6 address, are intended to support innovation generated by those who deliver the education service on the front line. We want LEAs and schools to make proposals, drawing on their expertise, that contribute to higher educational standards. That will be the acid test in deciding whether to accept their proposals. We are confident that that power will contribute to supporting schools and LEAs in making far-reaching changes, but we must bear a number of important principles in mind.
	First, under the Bill as drafted, an order would have to be made on all decisions to waive primary legislation, which would mean that everybody knew what the law was, and the absence of such a provision is a significant flaw in the new clauses. Secondly, the proposals contain no mechanism to check the actions of any LEA or governing body, no matter what its record. I was interested in the characteristically courteous rebuke offered by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) in reminding him of that problem. Thirdly, no parliamentary process is envisaged. Governing bodies and LEAs would have the power to determine the law in their area across a wide range of provisions with no parliamentary process being observed. Our view is that there should be parliamentary accountability. The new clauses would set that aside.

Graham Brady: Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Timms: I cannot, given the constraints. Let me make progress, if I may.
	On earned autonomy, given the nature of the freedoms, we must ensure that they go to schools in the best possible position to use them in the interests of their pupils. Autonomy must be earned; it will not be unconditional. I think that that is right and that, on reflection, the House will think it right too.
	Of course, as standards continue to rise over time and as leadership improves, more schools are likely to be in a position to use those additional freedoms. We shall review the criteria in the light of experience with the aim of increasing the number of schools involved, but, in the initial stages, we shall evaluate and learn from the experiences of our best schools. That will help us to consider what further flexibilities and what deregulation will benefit the school system as a whole.
	That is the right approach, as it complements the innovation proposals in chapters 1 and 2. It is important for the House to recognise the distinction between the power to innovate in chapter 1 and the proposals on earned autonomy in chapter 2, which have been confused.

Adam Price: Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Timms: I cannot, given the number of points to which I must respond. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
	Entirely understandable concern was expressed about special educational needs, so I am grateful to the Members who raised the matter for the chance to reaffirm our commitment to ensure that all schools, including those with earned autonomy, continue to meet in full their obligations to children with special educational needs. Nothing in earned autonomy will in any way change the responsibilities of schools or LEAs with respect to those children. If a child has an LEA statement including particular curricular requirements, for example, those must still be met by the school, whatever curriculum changes it may decide to introduce. I hope that that provides some reassurance on this important matter.
	As for the power to innovate and special educational needs, I can give similar reassurances, particularly in response to amendment No. 79. As we have been reminded a couple of times, the purpose of the power set out in clause 1 is to facilitate innovative projects that may contribute to the raising of standards. In the case of proposals that would not raise standards or that would benefit one group at the expense of another, the power could not be used. There is no reason why innovative proposals from schools or LEAs are any less likely to relate to children with special educational needs, and I am sure we all want such pupils to benefit from them. It is important to repeat, however, that proposals will be accepted only if the Secretary of State believes that they are likely to contribute to higher educational standards.
	The 1996 Act makes it clear that the school curriculum should be balanced and broadly based, a requirement that is retained in the Bill. The power to make variations relates to the national curriculum, which is only one element of the basic school curriculum.
	I hope that, in the short time that I have been given to respond to a very full debate, I have been able to reassure Members. We think it important to provide new avenues for innovation. I hope that, on the basis of my assurances, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) will feel able to withdraw the motion.

Phil Willis: I am grateful to the Minister for speeding up his response; I will do likewise.
	I accept that new clause 5 does not make clear how it would apply to schools, and I will not press it to a vote. New clause 6, however, establishes a principle on which we clearly disagree with the Government. They want to control the level of autonomy, and to ensure that all schools must apply to the Secretary of State. We believe that they should set parameters whereby all schools can automatically have autonomy.

Adam Price: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Phil Willis: No.
	One of the flaws in new clause 10 and, indeed, in the Conservatives' arguments is the fact that they want freedom for all schools, but accept that there must be some limits to that freedom. I accept that too, and I think the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was right to say that the Secretary of State should make the decisions.
	I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 6
	 — 
	Power of school to innovate without permission of the Secretary of State (No. 2)

'(1) This section has effect notwithstanding anything in sections 1 to 4 of this Act.
	(2) A maintained school governing body may resolve to implement an innovative project which in the opinion of the governing body contributes to the raising of educational standards achieved by registered pupils at the school.
	(3) Subject to subsection (4), the governing body may resolve to exempt, relax or modify any innovative project from any requirement imposed by education legislation on the governing body.
	(4) The Secretary of State shall by order designate any requirement imposed by education legislation on a school governing body as not subject to exemption, relaxation or modification by the governing body.'.—[Mr. Willis.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.
	Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 315.

Question accordingly negatived.

Paul Tyler: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received notice of an intention on the part of any Minister of the Crown to come before the House with a supplementary business statement? As a result of the private notice question, this afternoon's long statement and the incompetent way in which the manuscript amendment was presented to the House, the debate on this very important Bill started a great deal later than even the Government intended. Have you received information that the Government intend to extend debate on the important matters that remain on the Order Paper to another day?

Mr. Speaker: I came to the Chair only 15 minutes ago. No one has approached me since then.
	We now come to new clause 10, to be moved formally.

Graham Brady: Not moved, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The new clause is not being moved. No one tells me anything.
	Further consideration adjourned.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
	Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered tomorrow.

ESTIMATES

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee),
	That this House agrees with the Report [31st January] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
	Question agreed to.

STREET CRIME

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Jane Griffiths: In the academic circles that deal with crime, it is understood that there is something of a paradox about fear of crime. That is put most succinctly by Professor Jason Ditton from the university of Sheffield. He states:
	"Most surveys discover that people apparently fear most being a victim of precisely those crimes they are least likely to be the victim of."
	He goes on to say:
	"Little old ladies apparently worry excessively about being mugged, but they are the least likely to be mugging victims."
	It is generally thought that young men worry the least about being mugged, although they have the highest risk of being a victim of it.
	Reading, East is a young constituency. According to the 1991 census, 65.9 per cent. of its population is of working age, which makes it 20th in that league among all the constituencies in the country. With only 14.7 per cent. of the population of pensionable age, it ranks 596th in the league table for population of pensionable age.
	The fact that Reading, East is young is emphasised by the fact that 26 per cent. of my constituents—more than a quarter—belong to the 16 to 29 age group. That proportion is the 23rd largest of all constituencies in the country. That is not surprising, given that the House of Commons Library says that Reading, East is home to more than 7,000 of the almost 10,000 full-time students at Reading university.
	I am a young MP—I still like to think—representing a young constituency. A large amount of my work is with young people in Reading and Woodley. Just over a year ago, I held a forum and invited thousands of young residents from Reading and Woodley to an evening at a local late-night bar. They even got the first drink free. One of the issues raised with me was crime, particularly crime against young men. However, crime was something everyone was concerned about, with young men being the particular victims.
	I have continued to talk to people who came along that night, and to those people who apologised for not being able to come but who had an interest and wanted to talk to me about crime. I have also spoken to other young people who have contacted me subsequently. Crime comes up regularly as an issue of concern during meetings such as I have described. Frequently, crime is something that young people in Reading, East are angry about.
	Young people are angry about curtailments on their freedom caused by crime and the fear of crime. People are worried about crime happening in places where I, as a woman, would be happy to walk on my own. Yet places where I feel safe walking on my own are places where young people in Reading often do not like to walk. If they do walk in such areas—and more of them walk than drive—they do not feel safe.
	One person who has been the victim of mugging a number of times suffered another mugging on Boxing day. It happened at 9.30 in the evening. He was on a main thoroughfare that is well lit. Even on Boxing day evening, there was a lot of traffic and many people were around. That time, he lost his mobile phone and £4.
	It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]

Jane Griffiths: Fortunately, some people living nearby took the young man in, talked to him and helped him to feel confident enough to go out again. Young men who have suffered in that way have had their freedom seriously curtailed. The young man that I described is aged 20 and is more than 6 ft tall.
	We hear much about mobile phones and crime. In fact, I was contacted about the debate by a spokesperson for the Mobile Industry Crime Action Forum. I noted what was said, but I believe that more can be done by the manufacturers and by the firms selling air time to make mobile phones less attractive to steal and to find ways to prevent their use by people who have not bought them.
	We have also heard much about the decline in sales of mobile phones. One thing that has not been talked about is the impact of crime and the fear of crime on sales. Young women to whom I talk still consider their mobile phones as a fashion accessory. The look and functions are important: having the right phone matters to them. However, the young men to whom I talk do not seek out the newest mobile phones; they make do with a cheap, old-fashioned model. It is less expensive to replace if it is stolen and less desirable to steal. I see them walking along, holding cheap, clunky, old-fashioned phones, as if to say to everyone: "This is the only phone I've got, so it's not worth robbing me". So, not doing more to tackle the problem is actually resulting in depressed sales for the manufacturers.
	I have heard time and time again about young people's experience of crime, especially young men's experience of mugging and street crime. The young people of Reading, East have presented me with a large amount of anecdotal evidence and I wanted to find out if any information or figures had been published about the phenomenon.
	I found that most of the research and statistics concerned young men as the perpetrators of crime. Little research has been carried out on young men as the victims of crime. That is not especially surprising due to the way that young men are seen by the criminal justice system. Young men, especially groups of young men hanging around without much to do, are the stereotypical cause of fear of crime.
	In the Reading with Wokingham police area that covers my constituency, 664 young people between the ages of 10 and 17 offended in the 15 months between October 1999 and December 2000. That is 2.3 per cent. of the population of that age range. A quarter of those offences were committed by young women; less than 1.75 per cent. of young men between 10 and 17 had offended during that period. Of the 664 young people who offended, 16 per cent., or 106, had committed offences against the person. To put that into context, the Reading with Wokingham area covers about 300,000 people.
	The youth justice plan for the area states that most of those offences were committed against other young people. Young people who commit crimes do so mostly against other young people.
	Obviously the 575 crimes in Reading, East committed by young men are 575 too many, and I support strongly the work of the local youth offending team in reducing such crime. However, I believe strongly that all young men should not be stigmatised because of those who commit crime. Because some young men commit some crimes, it is most important that we should not lose sight of the fact that some young men are the victims of crime, too.
	As I said, I was looking for figures and research to get a true picture of crime against young men. In 1979, a study was carried out in two Sheffield schools, but work on young men as the victims of crime only really started in the 1990s, when work in Edinburgh over nine months revealed that half the sample had been victims of assault, threatening behaviour or theft. Follow-up work in Glasgow found that 82 per cent. of a sample of 208 12 to 14-year-olds recalled having been victimised in the previous year.
	In 1992, the British crime survey, using a sample of 1,350, found that a third of 12 to 15-year-olds claimed that they had been assaulted at least once, and I want to highlight that fact. That was the first time that that survey had asked about young people being the victims of crime, but I do not recall that gaining much serious news coverage at the time. If an elderly person is attacked, it is front-page news in the local papers, if not the national papers. We can only imagine the outcry if a third of old ladies had suffered from such crime.
	The 1998 British crime survey showed that young men aged between 16 and 25 were at the greatest risk of violence. That statistic was repeated in the reports carried out in 2000, and in the early figures released from the 2001 crime survey, although that records a welcome 19 per cent. fall in the number of violent crimes between 1999 and 2000. In particular, I was pleased to read that of the four categories that comprise violent crime—wounding, common assault, robbery and snatch theft—the largest fall, at 34 per cent., was recorded in wounding, which is described as assault resulting in more than trivial injury.
	As I said earlier, many young men who have spoken to me have not reported the crime they have suffered, so the figures for reported crime do not reflect the reality; nor do they reflect the extent of the problem facing young men. It is widely accepted that the crime survey, based on a statistically significant survey, is a more reliable guide to true levels of crime. According to that survey, there were 406,000 muggings in the United Kingdom in 1999.
	As well as asking about the number of crimes, the survey asks people to rate the incident on a scale from nought to 20. The average score for violence was 6.3, while the average seriousness score for mugging was 7.5—the highest for all violence. The figure for mugging has stayed the same each year. The important part of the survey that relates to violence covers the risk of violence to a person. On average, 4.2 per cent. of adults in England and Wales were the victims of one or more violent crimes. The figure is slightly higher for men at 5.3 per cent., than for women, at 3.3 per cent. However, more than 20 per cent. of men aged 16 to 24 were victims of violence once or more in 1999. A fifth of men aged 16 to 24 were the victims of violence in a year.
	I represent the entire centre of Reading and have talked in a previous debate about the growth in nightlife. On the whole, that change is welcome, given the extra jobs that it has created, and there is now much greater choice when going out. Indeed, going out at night in my constituency is safer than it was five or 10 years ago because of the number of people around, but many people say that the increase in nightlife has resulted in increased violence. Everyone involved in the night-time economy, as well as the police, had a part to play in tackling the increase in violence in the town centre that occurred in the two years from April 1992. However, saying that Reading is sloshing in blood just increases the fear of crime and helps no one.
	I join my hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) in the campaign for more police officers on the streets at night. I am pleased that the chief constable of the Thames Valley police has found the money to civilianise 27 posts in Reading this year as part of a pilot scheme. I also congratulate the police authority on taking the decision to increase the authority's budget by £5 million to extend the civilianisation. I look forward to those officers being on the streets of Reading and Woodley.
	I referred earlier to someone who had been mugged a number of times and suffered again on Boxing day. That crime, like the others he has suffered, was not reported to the police. That is not an unusual response by young men to that kind of crime. As a result, the police do not know where such crime happens; nor do they find out whether patterns occur at certain places. In fact, they have no record of most of the muggings against my constituents.
	The British crime survey shows us that most muggings take place on the street, that 70 per cent. of them involve more than one person, and that in 93 per cent. of cases at least one of the offenders is male. In 40 per cent. of the violent incidents, victims judged that the offender was under the influence of alcohol, but that is least likely for mugging, where the figure is 17 per cent. As the survey says, that is probably a result of the premeditated nature of the offence.
	We therefore know that mugging is most likely to involve a group of males in the street, but that knowledge does not get us much further forward. We also know that mugging has been very unlikely to take place in the centre of Reading since the welcome introduction of closed circuit television. However, I have talked to young men in my constituency, and it seems that mugging happens most frequently to young people on radial routes into and out of the centre of Reading and Woodley in the evening and at night.
	I would like crime reduction officers from the police to visit young men where they are—in the schools, colleges, offices and the university. I would like those young men to talk about their experiences in Reading of street crime and to talk about the places where it happens and what happens. The aim of that is to try to get young men to understand the importance of reporting street crime and to try to get them to think that people are interested in hearing about what they have experienced. I do not want some young men to get into street crime themselves because they believe that no one takes it seriously. I do not want the victims of street crime to become its perpetrators. I would like information to be collected as intelligence.
	I started this debate as a result of the approaches that I had received from young men in Reading, East, and I hope that that remark will not be misconstrued. When they had told me about the levels of crime that they were facing, I was astonished. I must admit that I found it hard to believe that young men in Reading and Woodley could be facing so much violence. I want there to be Government action to tackle this problem for our young men. I want action to be taken to show them that someone cares about what happens to them. Most of all, I want action to show young men in my constituency that, if they get involved, talk to the authorities and engage in dialogue, they can change things. Politics does work.

Keith Bradley: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) on obtaining this debate and on raising such important issues. Her description of Reading, East very much reminded me of my constituency of Manchester, Withington: it contains many students and young people and there is much activity on the streets at night because of the range of facilities that are available. As a Minister and local Member of Parliament, I recognise my hon. Friend's concerns and I welcome the way in which she described the problem to us. I know that the whole House is united in wanting to prevent crime, in wanting offenders to be brought to justice and in wanting to ensure support for victims.
	In responding to my hon. Friend's points, I particularly want to focus on what we are doing for victims. But I first want to outline the measures that we are taking to reduce violent crime and to increase public confidence in the criminal justice system. My hon. Friend provided a range of statistics that reinforce the need to tackle these issues.
	Increasing confidence is particularly important because, as my hon. Friend has highlighted, far too many crimes go unreported. The 2000 British crime survey revealed that only a quarter of young male victims reported crimes to the police. Those young men accept being a victim as a way of life—as something about which they can do nothing, or in some cases about which they are afraid to do anything. If they are not prepared to report crimes against themselves, it is not surprising that they are unwilling to come forward to make a statement or give evidence when others are victimised. That makes our fight against youth crime all the more difficult. However, it remains one of our key priorities to tackle the problem.
	Let me outline some of the many measures that we have implemented across government. First, we have focused on the family, with initiatives such as sure start to improve the life chances of pre-school children.
	Secondly, we have focused on factors that can lead to crime, and we are spending £600 million to tackle school truancy and exclusion.
	Thirdly, we are tackling deprivation, with the £900 million that we are investing in England's most deprived neighbourhoods where we know that crime and delinquency are particular problems.
	Fourthly—my hon. Friend mentioned this—we are transforming the youth justice system, with the establishment of the Youth Justice Board and a network of local youth offending teams to co-ordinate efforts against youth crime as never before. I join my hon. Friend in congratulating those teams on the work that they are doing in local areas. They are making a difference and are pulling agencies together as we try to find solutions to the problem.
	Fifthly, we are introducing other measures and programmes such as the intensive supervision and surveillance programme, which will focus on the hard core of young offenders and help to tackle youth offending more effectively.
	We have also provided substantial investment to address the problem of robbery, most of which, as my hon. Friend rightly explained, is committed by young men against other young men. We have provided the five metropolitan forces with an additional £20 million to develop and assess initiatives. We want them to establish and share good practice with other forces such as the one that covers my hon. Friend's constituency. We have set them the challenging target of reducing street robbery by 14 per cent. by March 2005.
	The recent surge in the theft of mobile phones will make that target even more challenging, but that is not just a problem for the police; it concerns us all. We are working with the mobile phone industry to find ways to make phones more secure. We have considered measures that United Kingdom phone operators can take to make stolen phones unusable and therefore worthless. Parents and teachers also need to provide better advice to young people about how they can avoid becoming the victims of such crimes.
	When a crime takes place, it is right that there should be a robust sentencing policy. The guidelines issued by the Lord Chief Justice last week related specifically to robbery rather than theft. Robbery is an offence that involves the use of force and, frequently, violence, threats and intimidation. It is a serious offence that deserves a serious punishment.
	It is essential, however, that more cases get to court so that magistrates and judges can give appropriate sentences to offenders who appear before them. For that to happen, we obviously depend on victims and witnesses being prepared to trust in the criminal justice process so that they participate in the actions of the court. The sad fact is that most victimised young men have no such trust. Whether consciously or not, they weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of reporting the crime, and nearly three quarters think that it is not worth the bother. If they know the offender, and many do, they fear retaliation. If they have offended previously themselves, and some have, they fear the police will not believe them. They might think they will not receive support as the case progresses, and could be daunted by the prospect of giving evidence in court.
	Since we took office, we have implemented a programme of measures which in time should begin to allay those fears. We have more than doubled the grant to the voluntary organisation, Victim Support. The £25 million it now receives annually ensures that it offers a wide range and better quality of service in every part of England and Wales.
	The previous Government established a victim and witness support service in the crown courts. From this April, we will have extended that to every magistrates court. Support will be available from the very beginning of the process, and cases will be less likely to fail or collapse.
	The police now routinely inform victims when a suspect has been charged, and the Crown Prosecution Service is implementing a system to ensure that it communicates its decisions about cases to victims. With the witness support service, it ensures that the victim receives all the required pre-court support—consistent, of course, with the need to, safeguard a fair hearing or trial. Through the victims personal statement scheme, implemented last October, we have ensured that victims are able to make a written statement outlining the effect of the crime on their lives, which includes an opportunity for them to let the criminal justice agencies know if they fear further victimisation so that effective preventive measures can be put in place.
	The package of measures that I have highlighted tonight demonstrate, I hope, the priority that we are giving to tackling crime and supporting victims. It is essential that they feel empowered and not marginalised by the criminal justice process. That is a long-term strategy that depends on every agency working closely together and, in turn, every agency fulfilling its responsibilities to victims. We need to convince the public generally and young male victims in particular that justice can be secured if they take positive and constructive action.
	We have made a start, but I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend, and support the need for more police on the streets; the use of CCTV cameras; and her views about the way in which crime reduction officers could be used more effectively in schools and colleges to address young men's fears and problems with the system. My hon. Friend brought those issues home to us effectively tonight. She clearly recognises that work has been done, but we all accept that much more needs to be done if we are to tackle the problem of street crime; people not reporting crime; people not wishing not participate in the criminal justice system; and, in this case, the sad but impressive statistic of the number of young people, particularly men, suffering from the problem of street crime. I welcome the debate, and shall look carefully at my hon. Friend's contribution to see what more can be done to ensure that the problems in Reading, East and throughout the country are addressed more effectively.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Ten o'clock.